mother charged £5 by natwest for cheque presented too early

shellsuit

Tupperware_Queen wrote: »

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.

Sorry if I came across as being mardy, just read my post back to myself and it sounds really rude

The OP actually made the post at 8.46 and logged off at the exact same time too.

They might come back or they might not. I've seen loads of threads where the OP has never bothered to come back, but that's normally on a 3+ page thread that's gone on for a while, not one just under 2 hours

chambta

themull1 wrote: »

I know what happened to the cheque, i wanted to know, if the cash was in her account, why she post dated it.

The money obviously wasn't in the account as it bounced and she was charged the £5 unpaid item charge. (£6 now, but the new charging structure only kicks in once February's charging period starts).

shellsuit

chambta wrote: »

The money obviously wasn't in the account as it bounced and she was charged the £5 unpaid item charge. (£6 now, but the new charging structure only kicks in once February's charging period starts).

Where does the OP say the cheque bounced?

chambta

shellsuit wrote: »

Where does the OP say the cheque bounced?

It's the only circumstance that would have incurred the £5 charge described.

boo_star

shellsuit wrote: »

Where does the OP say the cheque bounced?

HMRC presented it around the 25th to Natwest and Natwest must have said no given the date. The cheque was presented a few days later and cashed on the 31st

It's fairly obvious it bounced if Natwest say no.

boo_star

izools wrote: »

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

I do not dispute their right to close an account (for any reason.)

I dispute you calling it fraud, it clearly isn't and my point was, any bank that shot from-the-hip in a way you suggested would likely be an ex-bank.

Sure, they can make spurious entries to CIFAS, but if they do they'll become a laughing stock and their CIFAS entries will be ignored.

LittleVoice

boo_star wrote: »

It's fairly obvious it bounced if Natwest say no.

It is evident it "bounced" as that it what is described - a cheque presented and re-presented.

The reason for it bouncing suggested by the OP was it being a post-dated cheque - but given that we are constantly being told on this forum not to post-date cheques because banks don't read the date and will pay any way, perhaps that was not the case.

IIRC HMRC do say you can send post-dated cheques but you have to include a letter to point this out otherwise they will simply bank as received. So the OP's mother probably didn't provide the covering letter which would have prevented the unfortunate event.

shellsuit

chambta wrote: »

It's the only circumstance that would have incurred the £5 charge described.

boo_star wrote: »

It's fairly obvious it bounced if Natwest say no.

Sorry, yes, you're right. I missed the 'must' in the OPs sentence and thought they said 'Natwest said No given the date'.

bobbyj_2

sorry for not getting back immediately!

No the money was being transferred from her share account to her bank account around the 25th so she dated the cheque the 31st Jan (obviously the day her SA was due) to be safe. The money was of course in on the 31st (the date on the cheque). I just think it's daft that she is charged when the money was available on the day the cheque says it will be. I never knew post dating cheques was a big no no nor did she apparently. Anyhow a nice easy £5 (thought the site does say £6 charge) towards the majority government owned bank on top of the near £35k she was already handing over! Thanks for all the replies.

izools

boo_star wrote: »

I dispute you calling it fraud

To sign a cheque for a given amount, if at the very moment it is signed, that amount is in fact not available, is fraud.

Plain and simple.

But that's no bother, it's a very cheap and quick and easy lesson learned and OP's mother knows not to do it again

Everyone wins :beer: