Paid in post-dated cheque

YorkshireBoy

Pound wrote: »

It wasn't fraud but a genuine mistake. She had a cheque in her account that hadn't cleared.

Clearance takes 4 days. She should know that.

If she has an overdraft facility large enough to cover the value she could have given you the cheque the same day as she banked hers and it would have been paid with NO COST (in either fees or interest) to her.

It sounds to me (due to it being post dated by "a few days") like she hadn't even banked her cheque when she wrote yours. You know your friend better than I do, but I'd question if she's being entirely truthful with you.

Pound

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

It sounds to me (due to it being post dated by "a few days") like she hadn't even banked her cheque when she wrote yours. You know your friend better than I do, but I'd question if she's being entirely truthful with you.

It sounds to me they you like to make wild assertions.

k12479

Why thank you, very gracious of you.

What exactly are you advocating?

Additional work had to be performed, someone has to pay for it, it shouldn't be me and other customers.

Charges for bounced cheques will be listed in the T&Cs, on the website, etc.

It was not a genuine mistake. If it was, it would have been dated the same day, i.e. thinking there was enough money in the account at that time. She was, at best, counting on the other cheque to clear on time.

Your position (not checking the date) is completely understandable, hers is not.

YorkshireBoy

Pound wrote: »

It sounds to me they you like to make wild assertions.

OK tell us what you want to hear and we'll type something along those lines.

That better?

However, if you want to know why I posted what I did then google "T+2 T+4 cheque clearance".

agrinnall

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

OK tell us what you want to hear and we'll type something along those lines.

That better?

However, if you want to know why I posted what I did then google "T+2 T+4 cheque clearance".

Or to save any bother, look here http://www.chequeandcredit.co.uk/cheque_and_credit_clearing/cheque_clearing_timescales_(2-4-6)/

thenudeone

JuicyJesus wrote: »

RDPR is a reply given by the bank the cheque is drawn on. It stands for "Refer to Drawer Please Represent", and basically means "This bloke doesn't have the money,

Agree with that /\

JuicyJesus wrote: »

but we reckon he will if you stick the cheque through again".

but not that /\

A long time ago banks used to return cheques with "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" as the rejection message.

Then someone sued their bank for libel (perhaps there was an error and there should have been sufficient funds).

So to limit the risk of being sued, now banks will reject all bounced cheques with exactly the same message, which doesn't give any indication of funding or expected funding.

Although, even with the new wording, they can still be successfully sued for libel for bouncing a cheque which should have been paid:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/bounced-cheques-yield-libel-damages-1534499.html

JuicyJesus

thenudeone wrote: »

Agree with that /\


but not that /\ [...] banks will reject all bounced cheques with exactly the same message, which doesn't give any indication of funding or expected funding.

Sorry, but I know I'm right RDPR exists and it means exactly what I said it means.

RD = "insufficient funds and we don't think there'll be enough in the near future, sorry mate, you're sh*t outta luck"
RDPR = "insufficient funds right now, but stick it back through and we reckon it'll be alright next time"

There are other return codes also, to cover eventualities such as stopped cheques, uncleared positions on the drawer's account, the signature being wrong etc. You're unlikely to ever see these.

You're right on it being code though. "Refer to drawer" being a tactful way of saying "please ask this pillock why he hasn't got enough money in his account to pay your cheque and what he plans to do about it."

(If anyone would like other banking terminology simplified into common language do not hesitate to ask, I'm bored.)