Cheques To Be Paid In Via Smartphone

dtaylor84

Buzby wrote: »

My bank (BoA) allow business customers to even skip the stage of forwarding the photo of the cheque, by letting them use the account numbers and sort code to electronically debit the cheque supplier, they also retain the cheque as their authority to debit. Customers proactively opt-out of this process if they wish their cheques to be handled conventionally. Further, they (the cheque recipient) invariably asks to retain the data to ease subsequent payments. There is an opt out for this too.

Do the US have an equivalent to our Direct Debit scheme? As that basically sounds like a somewhat poor copy of it.

Wilkins

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Trouble is, I also pay for your cheques. I don't want to do that but I am quite happy for you to use cheques if you pay for yours all by yourself.

Electronic payments don't require trees to be hacked down, ink to be used on expensive hardware, people to operate the hardware, people to put your cheque book into an envelope, mail vans to ship your cheque book, people to process your cheques. I.e. they are already vastly cheaper than cheques could ever get - and yes, I know, we are paying for electronic payments as well. Which is quite ok, I am very happy to pay for what I use. But I object having to pay for things I don't use.

You are, of course, right here. But it's worth pointing out that IT infrastructure is not at all free and its ongoing cost has probably been underestimated by banks over the past few years and we are now seeing the results of neglected investment (attention at the back, RBS).


Also worth noting is the fact that I think on two separate occasions banks have tried to phase out free ATMs. I'd be perfectly happy to have banks charge for cheques if free cash withdrawals can continue.


Random aside: why do people use ATMs that charge when there are so many free ones around?

Gromitt

Wilkins wrote: »

Random aside: why do people use ATMs that charge when there are so many free ones around?

Convenience. I've seen people use the ATM in the pub (which charges £1.50 per transaction) instead of walking down the road to the nearest bank. Second, I know a few people who don't think you can use a Barclays ATM with a Natwest card (for example), but think the ones in pubs and clubs are 'Universal'.

YORKSHIRELASS

My husband runs a small self employed business. Probably 75% of his customers are elderly and if they couldnt use cheques they would pay in cash. This would mean them drawing out maybe £200+ in cash from the bank and keeping it in the house until my husband is next due to visit. My husband would then have to keep the cash safe until I could get it banked which is all a hassle to be honest.

We would love more customers to pay by bank transfer but they just wont so for now I dont see any alternative to cheques. We are in a fortunate position of not being in any hurry to get the cheques cleared so this new system may be useful for some but we wouldnt bother with it - unless perhaps money was really tight for some reason.

ceredigion

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Trouble is, I also pay for your cheques. I don't want to do that but I am quite happy for you to use cheques if you pay for yours all by yourself.

Electronic payments don't require trees to be hacked down, ink to be used on expensive hardware, people to operate the hardware, people to put your cheque book into an envelope, mail vans to ship your cheque book, people to process your cheques. I.e. they are already vastly cheaper than cheques could ever get - and yes, I know, we are paying for electronic payments as well. Which is quite ok, I am very happy to pay for what I use. But I object having to pay for things I don't use.

Well, that really is a right of right wing attitude. I don't have any children so don't want to pay for the education system, never needed a hospital so im not paying for the NHS , house has never burnt down, so not paying for the fire service. Never been burgled , never been flooded , don't use public transport so why should I subsidise the daily commute for those who choose to work in a city and get there by train. The list goes on and on just be grateful we don't all have the above attitude.

Archi_Bald

You are so badly informed, I have to comment:

- not paying for the education system even if I didn't have any children would mean I have to live in a society of uneducated, illiterate, and uninformed people. So I gladly pay may share towards the education system.

- I am paying for the NHS and the fire service because it is effectively an insurance policy for myself. Same goes for real insurances against flooding, burglary etc. The alternative, i.e. going uninsured, is unimaginable to me

- public transport subsidy is a benefit for the wider society - e.g., crudely, if people can go to work on public transport, they can pay their taxes, which in turn benefits the society. It is something any modern society would want to be able to afford.

- there is a huge range of other items I have paid, and am paying, tax for. Although I'd like to pay less tax, I do pay it because I find the alternatives utterly unattractive.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the methods of payment available to all of us. Society doesn't get any worse and lives aren't endangered by methods of payments. There are several alternatives, and one of them is massively more expensive than the others. Therefore people who wish to use the more expensive alternative should be asked to pay for using it.

You might call this a "right of right wing attitude" but I am not sure what realism has to do with political persuasion. Next you will probably argue I should subsidise strawberries and champagne because everybody needs food and drink.

1jim

The branch network must be fairly expensive to run, I don't use that so can I get a better interest rate? Rebate?

If charges were to come in for cheques do you really think you will pay less for the service you receive or will you still end up paying the same as now and I end up paying more?

In our local area the council always collected the green bin for garden waste, this was paid out of council tax. I now pay £25 a year to have this collected, do you think those who chose not to use this service have had a refund on their bill?

Wilkins

Gromitt wrote: »

Convenience. I've seen people use the ATM in the pub (which charges £1.50 per transaction) instead of walking down the road to the nearest bank. Second, I know a few people who don't think you can use a Barclays ATM with a Natwest card (for example), but think the ones in pubs and clubs are 'Universal'.

I suppose that is just about it, but I find it vaguely shocking. There is a convenience store near me (far from a wealthy area) which has the only non-free ATM in the locality. It's as if people go to the shop, then realise they have no cash and pay £1.50 for the privilege of withdrawing £20 or £30 (I've seen the slips). Then they buy lottery tickets (Ok, I'm guessing there).

Wilkins

Archi_Bald wrote: »

There are several alternatives, and one of them is massively more expensive than the others. Therefore people who wish to use the more expensive alternative should be asked to pay for using it.

Banks are not public services paid for out of taxes (Ok, I am talking of an idealised parallel universe here) but businesses. It's up to them to choose what to charge for. A huge number of businesses cross subsidise their products and services in order to gain competitive advantage.


As a customer, my only role to is to use their service or to go to a competitor, though I am entitled to say why I choose to stay or go and the business may or may not be interested.

rb10

1jim wrote: »

The branch network must be fairly expensive to run, I don't use that so can I get a better interest rate?

Yes, by not using the branch network you can get Nationwide's 5% Fpex direct account.

You also havw greater flexibility for savings accounts., i.e. better rates.