cheque guarantee problem???

Degenerate

zppp wrote: »

Hang Leng, what I have said is supported by the above link. Not only that this is what the CAB say:

You're misreading the below. It supports jap11s case.

According to the cheque guarantee scheme the bank will guarantee your cheque providing all the following conditions are met:

• The cheque does not exceed the limit on the cheque guarantee card; and
• The signature on the cheque matches the specimen on the card and was written in the presence of The person receiving the cheque; and
• The person accepting the cheque writes the card number on the back of it; and
• The cheque guarantee card has not expired; and
• The cheque is not drawn on the account of a limited company; and
• Only one cheque is used in the transaction.

Up to this point is was talking about Guaranteed cheques. The following paragraph moves on to the bank's obligations regarding cheques in general:

Your bank or building society is contractually bound to honour all cheques, provided that sufficient funds are in your account, or if the cheque was within the limits of your agreed overdraft. So, even if the cheque was over guarantee, but there was enough money in the account, it should have been honoured.
In this situation, contact your bank to find out why they failed to honour the cheque. Without this information, it will be difficult to argue with the music store. If there has been an error on the part of the bank, they would be expected to pay the music store any compensation for the inconvenience and expense caused in the cheque being returned.
If, for some reason, the bank were right to bounce your cheque, you could return to the branch of the music store and look for the agency's notice. If the notice is not prominent then you may be able to argue a case for not paying the £58. Just be aware that it may cost you more in the long run if the dispute then went to court.

jamesd

zppp wrote: »

Hang Leng, what I have said is supported by the above link

What you wrote is directly contradicted by the text of the link that you provided, which is explicit that the use of frequency marking, one encashment per day and 3 day time limit only apply to places that provide cash in exchange for a cheque.

zppp

Degenerate wrote: »

You're misreading the below. It supports jap11s case.

Up to this point is was talking about Guaranteed cheques. The following paragraph moves on to the bank's obligations regarding cheques in general:

It seems to have been discussed with regard to a cheque guarantee card scenario:

http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/askthesiteqandas/moneyqandas/chequebounceflounce

zppp

jamesd wrote: »

What you wrote is directly contradicted by the text of the link that you provided, which is explicit that the use of frequency marking, one encashment per day and 3 day time limit only apply to places that provide cash in exchange for a cheque.

The second link has nothing to do with cheque frequencies, which I talked about before with regard to encashment services. It doesn't even mention it. What it does state is that the CAB recognise that in certain circumstances banks are not obliged to honour a guaranteed cheque, something that Hang Leng denies.

inmypocketnottheirs

OP, how much is the cheque for?

boo_star

zppp wrote: »

The second link has nothing to do with cheque frequencies, which I talked about before with regard to encashment services. It doesn't even mention it. What it does state is that the CAB recognise that in certain circumstances banks are not obliged to honour a guaranteed cheque, something that Hang Leng denies.

In certain circumstanes they are not.

In the OPs case (which meet the requirements) they are.

Re-read your second quotation.

jamesd

zppp, you wrote about "what I have said is supported by the above link", which is the first one, which you wrongly claimed supported your view.

The second link translated says that if you use a cheque for an amount over the guarantee limit, the cheque isn't guaranteed and the bank is allowed to refuse to pay it. This also doesn't support your view that "They may have been an handed you the cheque, gone to a cheque encasher and written 2 cheques to them with the same dates. This means that all cheques guaranteed are nul."

Hang Leng is writing about properly guaranteed cheques, within the limit and with all the required formalities taken care of. And is getting bogus arguments from the bank for the cheque not being paid, either deliberately or from staff who don't understand the rules.

A cheque guarantee scheme where a guaranteed cheque cold be made non-guaranteed by transactions not under control of the merchant accepting the guarantee would be useless.

You'd be entirely correct to write that it's possible to have signed, properly dated, with number written on them cheques that might appear to some to be guaranteed but aren't actually guaranteed, for reasons like being over the guarantee limit, more than one per transaction or more than one encashment per day.