My £65.00 Nat West cheque, please advise.

dawyldthing

Thing is, that most parts of a cheque can be changed just by someone initialing it (i found this out when someone changed a cheque from the gas company to themselves) so it is possible for the actual full amount to be charged. As for compo, i very much doubt it as at the end of the day it was a clerical error but as less has been taken out then no harm has happened. Best thing to do in future is to print it as though its going through on a computer as then hopefully no errors will happen

marywooyeah

I've just been on lexislibrary and westlaw and can't find it either - possibly there is a similar sounding Act that the poster has confused it with?

noh

opinions4u wrote: »

I have never heard of this legislation.

Google hasn't helped either, and I can't find it in any Hansard online resource. Wikipedia doesn't help despite listing many Acts of Parliament.

Please can you better reference it.

Possibly because the OP is not out of pocket in any way, shape or form, many people dislike the compensation culture and in this case the OP and their own handwriting is the problem.

This may be the case, but I've never heard of it. I cannot find a reference to it on Google. I cannot find a reference to it in Ombudsman News, Hansard or Wiki either. That doesn't mean the Act doesn't exist, but it would be nice to evidence it.

I think Blobby8 missed out some tags. To make his statement clearer it should have been:-

[SARCASM] it is your right, section six , subsection 4 of the missaplication of funds act 1979.
Let us know how you get on.[/SARCASM]

marywooyeah

yes that is probably the most likely explanation, but I actually thought he was offering advice rather than being sarcastic - should have known better on here really!

Techhead_2

ILW wrote: »

Think this thread may explain a few things.https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2867928

Classic. I haven't laughed so much in weeks.

Doozergirl

Mr_Linnet wrote: »

According to the Bank Manager at the time it was put down to a "Processing Error". Thus the reason for my original post. Its not the amounts involved its the principle.

It's your handwriting. Make an effort. I couldn't make a 5 look like a 0 if I tried.

H is the same, he just can't be bothered. We have a business bank account which operates much more like old fashioned banking and I can't count the number of phonecalls where his signature is 'wrong' on a cheque or they've called our business manager downstairs to personally verify his ID in branch.

jen245

Techhead wrote: »

Classic. I haven't laughed so much in weeks.

Yep this op isn't very skilled in the art of cleaning toilets or writing cheques. Sh*t handwriting, literally :rotfl:

Degenerate

Blobby8 wrote: »

Of course you should write to them asking for compensation, ignore the grumps, it is your right, section six , subsection 4 of the missaplication of funds act 1979.
Let us know how you get on.

Good advice. I think they may also wish to quote section 7(ii) of the Accounting Standards and Financial Malfeasance Act 1969:

Where an instrument is presented to an institution for fulfilment, the reciever of said instrument shall bear sole responsibilty for fulfilment of all requirements of the instrument. Failure to fulfil due to inadequate examination of said instrument shall incur a liabilty to award compensation, to be determined at a level that reflects the consequent losses and distress to the issuer from not having their instrument fulfilled.

Mr_Linnet, Don't let the nay-sayers deter you from pursuing this to the full extent of the law.

jamesd

So we know that the consequential loses were zero. The distress? Unclear.

The cause? Well, two different receivers of money getting it wrong suggests a root cause in the writing of the digits. Better to take more care about writing digits unambiguously than pursue compensation.

Blobby8_2

Degenerate wrote: »

Good advice. I think they may also wish to quote section 7(ii) of the Accounting Standards and Financial Malfeasance Act 1969:

Where an instrument is presented to an institution for fulfilment, the reciever of said instrument shall bear sole responsibilty for fulfilment of all requirements of the instrument. Failure to fulfil due to inadequate examination of said instrument shall incur a liabilty to award compensation, to be determined at a level that reflects the consequent losses and distress to the issuer from not having their instrument fulfilled.

Mr_Linnet, Don't let the nay-sayers deter you from pursuing this to the full extent of the law.

Does that count as an assist ?
:rotfl::beer::rotfl: