End of cheque guarantee system

rb10

jennifernil wrote: »

How would "dual-authorisation debit cards" work?

One card, two PINs, issued separately to two different account signatories.

Two signatories go into the shop together, card in machine, Person 1 puts their PIN into the machine, Person 2 puts their PIN in. There must be two correct PINs before payment is made.

I have no idea whether this exists anywhere, but it would be great if it could. Of course, the limitation is that two people must be present together.

However, whilst this would be nice, I can't see it happening too soon, as banks don't make enough money from charities.

And it doesn't help with 'what do we do when cheques go?' either - as few shops accept cheques anyway.

olly300

rb10 wrote: »

Two options:

1) Tradesmen have to adapt, and accept that they may need to leave an invoice for later payment.

Certain organisations are particularly bad at paying their bills on time.

I presume with the cheque they think they have got payment even though cheques bounce and they may have to chase the debt.

So I could see tradesmen accepting mobile phone payments or carrying around a carbon copy card machine, like some market traders, but I can see them refusing to entertain those who wouldn't pay by some method on the spot.

WhiteHorse

Cheques are more secure. All someone needs to commit a fraud is your card details (and once committed, you will probably have a devil of a job, proving it).

There is a place for credit cards etcetera, but cheques are also extremely useful.

Getting rid of them has nothing to do with helping the customer. In reality, it's all about cutting costs and maximising the fat cats profits.

WhiteHorse

rb10 wrote: »

And it doesn't help with 'what do we do when cheques go?' either - as few shops accept cheques anyway.

Actually, that opens up another question ... just when and why did cheques go 'bad'?

For a long time, cheques were accepted without difficulty, so what went wrong? Would it have something to do with suddenly splashing cheque books about, issuing them to loads of people who, quite frankly, weren't fit to be trusted with them?

And who did that? It wouldn't by some mysterious chance be the same organisations whose wild lending policies recently brought the financial world to it's knees?

CLAPTON

olly300 wrote: »

I would have to do a web search as I read about it a few years ago then saw it on BBC business news late last year.

Edit - found these companies:
http://www.paymo.com/
http://www.onebip.com/index.html (Fees are too high)

News stories -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11793290
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-11670524 - last story reminded me of the difficulty I had trying to sign up for mobile payments with a council in London to pay for parking. In this case the payments where put on your mobile phone bill. The system was terrible- it had a convoluted registration process where the operator kept asking you these stupid questions - in the end I found a meter that worked.

thanks for the links
I'm not sure I understand how they work but does seem to have some potential

olly300

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Cheques are more secure. All someone needs to commit a fraud is your card details (and once committed, you will probably have a devil of a job, proving it).

There is a place for credit cards etcetera, but cheques are also extremely useful.

Cheques aren't more secure.

They are easily forged - you clearly not heard of scram payments paid with foreign/stolen cheques.

People in this country write "bad" cheques with the company/person not being paid the debt owed. Why do you think that shops use to have to ring up to get a cheque payment authorised?

People steal entire cheque books out of the post and write cheques to everyone.

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Getting rid of them has nothing to do with helping the customer. In reality, it's all about cutting costs and maximising the fat cats profits.

The volume of cheques in use is decreasing dramatically year on year.

Why use an antiquated system - and it is antiquated - when you can get people paid within the hour by electronic means?

WhiteHorse

olly300 wrote: »

Cheques aren't more secure.

If you have to forge a document to start with, that's a level of protection not enjoyed by the victim of credit card fraud.

They are easily forged - you clearly not heard of scram payments paid with foreign/stolen cheques.

Then make them not easily forged. Why have cheques not kept up with banknotes? Answer, because banks want to get rid of them.

People in this country write "bad" cheques with the company/person not being paid the debt owed. Why do you think that shops use to have to ring up to get a cheque payment authorised?

See Post #45.

People steal entire cheque books out of the post and write cheques to everyone.

So why is it still so easy to steal them and use them?

The volume of cheques in use is decreasing dramatically year on year.

When it is made to be so, it will be so.

Why use an antiquated system - and it is antiquated - when you can get people paid within the hour by electronic means?

Because people want it and pay for it in the overall running costs of the bank. If you don't want it, then you don't have to use it.

olly300

WhiteHorse wrote: »

If you have to forge a document to start with, that's a level of protection not enjoyed by the victim of credit card fraud.


Then make them not easily forged. Why have cheques not kept up with banknotes? Answer, because banks want to get rid of them.

You forgot one major thing - the law surrounding the use of them in the different legal jurisdictions of the UK.

For example in the US and France if you write a "bad" cheque it's fraud. In the UK it's not.

WhiteHorse wrote: »

See Post #45.


So why is it still so easy to steal them and use them?


When it is made to be so, it will be so.


Because people want it and pay for it in the overall running costs of the bank. If you don't want it, then you don't have to use it.

Personal current accounts in the UK are free if you are in credit. (If you choose to pay for the extras then it's up to you.)

This means there are a hell of a lot of people not paying for the use of cheques in any shape or form.

Wasteofspace

Absolutely baffled as to why some of you think cheques are in some way secure. That said most of what people think about cheques is wrong. People think they clear in four days, people think they can write a cheque and put the funds in the account three days later. Then they go moaning to the banks when the cheques bounce and they incur fees.

Heard a few days ago of a guy who was paying his credit card by posting a cheque in the mail, hadn't paid on time in over 9 months! Was moaning because one had gone missing completely! Wouldn't like to have his credit rating!

Then as to fraud, you think the shops are being forced to abandon cheques? Why would they hand over goods for a promise when they can ask for cash or card and be sure the money is theirs?

Opened a new account at Lloyds today, specifically asked the advisor not to send me a checkbook, to which she replied she had already deselected this because hardly anyone wants them these days.

You may want cheques, shillings, and inches, but some of us have moved on!

jennifernil

As users of a "charity account" we find we do need to use cheques at the moment. Many of the people we pay could accept transfers, but as in my example above, a few do/will not.

As for dual authorisation debit cards.....this seems impracticable.

As a retired person I can usually be anywhere any time, but my second signature is a doctor, she could not be there whenever needed.

Even dual authorisation on bank transfers can be very difficult to arrange.