mother charged £5 by natwest for cheque presented too early

Tupperware_Queen

kiebee wrote: »

Do NatWest specifically have a policy of charging for this? Might be worth checking (no pun intended ).

on Natwest website charges are listed as £6....not £5 and can't see anything related to postdated cheques

corbyboy

But what's the charge actually for? Is it a punishment for post-dating the cheque? Natwest haven't actually suffered any loss and the cheque didn't bounce.

Tupperware_Queen

corbyboy wrote: »

But what's the charge actually for? Is it a punishment for post-dating the cheque? Natwest haven't actually suffered any loss and the cheque didn't bounce.

thats what I mean...can't see from the website what the charge can relate to, as they don't even list a charge which costs £5

is it possible the £5 is unrelated to the cheque??

boo_star

corbyboy wrote: »

But what's the charge actually for? Is it a punishment for post-dating the cheque? Natwest haven't actually suffered any loss and the cheque didn't bounce.

Possibly the cheque was initially returned as "Refer to drawer, Please Represent" rather than simply "Refer to Drawer" as it appears from my understanding to have been bounced on the 25th and paid some days later.

As far as post-dating goes, banks logically ignore this. Bar the possibilty of time machines, if a cheque has been written and presented to the bank, it must have been written prior to this date so is valid. Banks only use the date to determine if a cheque is too old (6 months.)

I did work for a bank in a past life and when confronted with a bounced post dated cheque was told by my mentor "If we didnt just present them we'd have drawers full of different cheques that we would have to remember to present on the correct date, it isn't feasible."

I tend to agree with this.

izools

missindecisive wrote: »

sorry but what a load of old twaddle. natwest are idiots with their charges- hence their nick name 'Tw*t west' . everyone knows that!

Well they're actually well within their rights to close the account.

Bobby, although this is a minor misdemeanour on your Mothers' part, to draw a cheque on an account in which there are insufficient funds to cover it, is fraud.

To post date a cheque is a breach of the terms of the account.

She is lucky to have got away with a very small charge and nothing else. Worst case scenario she could be having to find a new bank and have a CIFAS marker on her credit file.

Tupperware_Queen

OP's not been back to the thread since original post!

shellsuit

Tupperware_Queen wrote: »

OP's not been back to the thread since original post!

So?

They posted it less than 2 hours ago.

Maybe they had something more important to do and are going to catch up on the thread another time.

boo_star

izools wrote: »

She is lucky to have got away with a very small charge and nothing else. Worst case scenario she could be having to find a new bank and have a CIFAS marker on her credit file.

Please...

This isn't fraud, there is no deception, simply ignorance. It's not like she wrote it out trying to get the bank to pay it and then ran off.

As far as a CIFAS marker? If she was a repeat offender and they'd requested the chequebook back, she ignored the request and continued to do it, possibly.

But she isn't lucky to have got away with it, it happens all the time.

If banks tried this approach they'd soon end up with no customers as they'd all seemingly be doing a stretch for fraud or be on CIFAS and they wouldn't take on any new customers.

izools

The point is that as per the terms of the account the bank could technically do this and would be within their rights doing so.

As this was probably a first offence they didn't throw the book at her as that would be overkill, instead simply levvying a small cautionary charge as if to say to her, look, please don't do that again.

And now, no doubt she won't

All is well :beer:

Tupperware_Queen

shellsuit wrote: »

So?

They posted it less than 2 hours ago.

Maybe they had something more important to do and are going to catch up on the thread another time.

just commenting that we had all asked questions, but that the OP wasn't here to answer them.

However, I replied within 2 minutes of the original post, so it would be a bit strange to post a thread and then not look at replies. Maybe the OP was just having a rant, and didn't actually need our responses.