Stolen Cheque - No End In Sight

innovate

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

It is my opinion that Direct Line owes OP the money.
Sending out the cheque does not dissipate the responsibility until OP has received the funds.

Suppose you give somebody a cheque. The cheque is cashed, the money has left your account. The payee then tells you that the cheque was stolen and had in fact been cashed by the thief.

You then reach for your cheque book and write them a cheque for the same amount again.

Hmh. Somehow I think you probably wouldn't.

So why should Direct Line do?

BlueAngelCV

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

It is my opinion that Direct Line owes OP the money.
Sending out the cheque does not dissipate the responsibility until OP has received the funds.

As long as he is in no way connected with the cheque disappearance then DL should issue a replacement cheque (or better a direct bank transfer) and then take the fraud case to the authorities.

I disagree. Direct Line issued the cheque, it was sent by them to the correct address, received and then cashed.

If it had gone to the wrong address or hadn't been received before being cashed then that is one thing but they have discharged their obligations.

Ozzysmate

I had a similar experience, a few years ago, when I used the Post Office system for paying in cheques after rural bank branches were closed. Similar, in that the cheque (for a similar amount) was subsequently stolen and cashed.

Like the OP, I chased around all parties that I thought were involved and each denied responsibility, pointing the finger at the other. A very stressful time as it was payment for work done.

In desperation, I contacted the legal advice service, offered by my bank as part of their 'pay £x/month for extended services' The advice was quite straightforward. Ultimately, the buck stopped with the issuer's bank. It is their responsibility to ensure the money is transferred to the payee's a/c. Isn't this why cheques are crossed with the words 'AccountPayee?'

If the cheque was drawn on Direct Line, I would be concentrating my efforts on their issuing bank and on the cash converter who was duped.

The thief didn't steal from you, he stole from the bank.

Good luck.

innovate

Ozzysmate wrote: »

The thief didn't steal from you, he stole from the bank

The cheque was not cashed into a bank account, it was paid in cash by Cash Converters.

As I posted before, they either did not follow their own procedures, or the alleged thief was able to present all the ID documents required by Cash Converters.

jonesMUFCforever

innovate wrote: »

Suppose you give somebody a cheque. The cheque is cashed, the money has left your account. The payee then tells you that the cheque was stolen and had in fact been cashed by the thief.

You then reach for your cheque book and write them a cheque for the same amount again.

Hmh. Somehow I think you probably wouldn't.

So why should Direct Line do?

...And if the cheque was supposed to be paid to you and somebody else banked/cashed it - would you just write it off?
IMO Legally Direct Line have not paid the OP - he has not received the cash and is still liable to pay.
I agree they are the victims of fraud here - that is up to them to sort out - whether eventually cash converters or the paying bank are ultimately responsible for not following their correct procedure is not up to the OP.

I did add that I think this is the legal position provided that the OP is in no way a partner to the fraud in any way or form.

jonesMUFCforever

BlueAngelCV wrote: »

I disagree. Direct Line issued the cheque, it was sent by them to the correct address, received and then cashed.

If it had gone to the wrong address or hadn't been received before being cashed then that is one thing but they have discharged their obligations.

Can you quote statute law to back your claim?
I think you are wrong but am always prepared to be corrected.

innovate

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

IMO Legally Direct Line have not paid the OP - he has not received the cash

Would be very easy then to cash a cheque twice (or thrice....or....) - - the fraudsters just construe some sort of theft of the original cheque (after it's been cashed over a counter), then demand they get the cheque again because Direct Line cannot prove that the rightful payee got the money.

I reckon this sort of 'trick' is as old as the pawn broker industry, and the likes of Direct Line just yawn now when they get yet another 'demand' for a cheque to be re-issued because it has allegedly been stolen.

whitewing

On the basis that the OP has a crime ref number and the police are confident 'whodunnit', can't the OP issue small claims proceedings against both Direct Line and Cash Converters as part of the same action, and then they can sort it amongst themselves?

innovate

whitewing wrote: »

On the basis that the OP has a crime ref number and the police are confident 'whodunnit', can't the OP issue small claims proceedings against both Direct Line and Cash Converters as part of the same action, and then they can sort it amongst themselves?

On the basis as you say, and that the OP has a credible explanation on how the alleged thief got hold of the ID required for cashing a cheque, they could pay £95 to take Cash Converters to the Small Claims Court.

I can't see why they would take Direct Line to Court (see my previous posts for rationale).

Not sure you can raise a single Small Claims case against more than one / an unknown opponent. I reckon you need to be pretty clear who you are asking money from.

As an important aside, I notice the OP by their absence from the discussion.

jonesMUFCforever

innovate wrote: »

Would be very easy then to cash a cheque twice (or thrice....or....) - - the fraudsters just construe some sort of theft of the original cheque (after it's been cashed over a counter), then demand they get the cheque again because Direct Line cannot prove that the rightful payee got the money.

I reckon this sort of 'trick' is as old as the pawn broker industry, and the likes of Direct Line just yawn now when they get yet another 'demand' for a cheque to be re-issued because it has allegedly been stolen.

I did cover this possibility in my original post and the reply to yours.

You could well be right and OP is a troll.