Question about name on cheque

Comyface

I know what you mean, Uncertain. When I was a bank teller (many moons ago!) I had this exact scenario.

I initially rejected the cheque but my customer explained, as you have, that it was just the old-fashioned way of writing names. I saw her point and accepted the cheque.

BoGoF

And Debretts has what legal authority?

Uncertain

BoGoF wrote: »

And Debretts has what legal authority?

Probably much the same as yours!

BoGoF

Just had a look at Debretts....all about etiquette and how to address the royal family, i.e. for snobs. Perhaps fitting when you address people as "junior manager"

whitewing

HMRC sent me a tax overpayment back as a cheque issued to Miss X Whitewing, when my name is Mrs Z X Whitewing. The bank would only accept it when I took in a letter from my accountants specifying the exact same amount, so I didn't need to get it re-issued.

Has Mrs Fred Bloggs got any covering letter to go with the cheque, especially if it has her address on.

Uncertain

BoGoF wrote: »

Perhaps fitting when you address people as "junior manager"

I didn't!

I described them as "a junior manager" which is what they were. It was not the branch manager or their deputy but somebody senior to the cashier who she described as "her manager".

It really doesn't matter if it is was the cleaner or the chief executive, all I want to know is if they were right or wrong.

You are one of those who say "right" and you may well be correct but others say "wrong".

pinkdalek

Bank was in its rights to refuse it, payable to a different name that is on the account. Irrespective if her late husband was F Blogg or not she is Gladys Blogg and this was how she agreed to open her account and how she identified herself to the bank at the time. If she would rather be known as Mrs Fred Blogg then tell her to take in sufficient ID and the bank will change her records accordingly.

Again how does the bank not know there is a Mrs F Blogg somewhere missing a cheque.

The mistake is not with the bank but with the person who issued the cheque.

IanManc

Uncertain wrote: »

So, what I'm trying to find out is if there is a specific banking regulation that prevents this or if the bank staff are being awkward or ignorant.

If the cheque is crossed - which cheques issued by all UK clearing banks nowadays are - it can only be paid into an account in the name of a beneficiary exactly as it appears on the cheque.

The relevant legislation is Section 1 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

So the bank staff were not being awkward or ignorant - they were complying with the law.

http://www.paymentscouncil.org.uk/payment_advice/key_payment_questions/

Gromitt

Uncertain wrote: »

Sorry but you are completely missing my point!

If Gladys gets married to Fred Bloggs, and if she chooses to use her husband's surname (she doesn't have to), she is technically Mrs Fred Bloggs. Obviously her friends call her Gladys, not Fred. They should never write Mrs Gladys Bloggs.

Does the bank know that Gladys is married to Fred? If she only opened the account as "Mrs/Ms G Bloggs", then thats all the bank know her by and therefore will refuse a crossed cheque that is not in that name.

Of the people I know who are married, none of them have chosen to use their husbands forename, but all have chosen to use their surename, so in this case they would certainly be Mr F Bloggs and Mrs G Bloggs.

Mikeyorks

No matter what it says in the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 or the Cheques Act 1992 et al. There are 3.5M cheques transit Clearing each working day. Of those the vast majority (no one can put a figure on it but estimates are well above 75%) do not go over a Bank counter.

As they are paid to the large processors such as CC companies / PO / DVLA / HMRC etc. All of these put their semi processed cheques direct into Clearing. And - with effect from the best part of 10 years ago - none of those organisations any longer check dates / signatures / payee etc. They just process / deposit them. And leave it to the customer relationship with their own bank if anything is wrong with the cheque.

So it makes it all the dafter that, at the fag end of this volume, payee Banks continue their microscopic examination of signature / words and figures / dates etc and appear to take a perverse delight in finding a reason for non acceptance. In the exampled case - a little wisdom and a minute amount of checking would have resolved the problem.