Cheques To Be Paid In Via Smartphone

Buzby

dtaylor84 wrote: »

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

Yes they do - what they're doing with checks is an attempt to leverage the Check user into paperless, whether they like it or not.

Because they (banks) lost the cheque battle, this gives them another opportunity to kill it.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Excellent idea. They just need to return the Cheque Guarantee system and I can start paying by cheque in the Supermarket.

But I will still pay mine into the bank manually and will continue to write ten cheques for each BT bill I get just make sure I get value for money out of their processing fee too.

And for all those cheque naysayers - at least cheques are providing employment in the UK and it is one thing that banks as far as I know shipped overseas.

JuicyJesus

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Excellent idea. They just need to return the Cheque Guarantee system and I can start paying by cheque in the Supermarket.

And then pigs will fly.

Why do you love cheques so much?

Gromitt

YORKSHIRELASS wrote: »

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.

You are missing the other advantages. With your system you take the only copy of the cheque that there is and transport it to the bank assuming that neither you lose or the bank loses or damages it. If either happens you have to go back to the person who wrote it and ask them to cancel that cheque and write out a new one. Hassle for you both.

If you just take a photograph you get to keep the cheque for your records, and if for some reason the cheque doesn't get deposited, you can simply ask the bank why and even redeposit if needed.

Since most of your customers are the elderly the later seems a far better idea.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

JuicyJesus wrote: »

And then pigs will fly.

Why do you love cheques so much?

Perhaps one reason i like them is their existence still keeps people employed. You know in jobs. Those things Mr. Cameron wants everyone to have.

1jim

rb10 wrote: »

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.

So I get a better rate for 12 months then 1%, am sure the branch network costs more than that to run

I don't really want to get a rebate however just merely pointing out that if we start trying to charge for one item on an account because one person doesn't use it, the next logical step is to charge for every aspect of the service...then when adding it all up it becomes unpalatable

Archi_Bald

1jim wrote: »

.... just merely pointing out that if we start trying to charge for one item on an account because one person doesn't use it, the next logical step is to charge for every aspect of the service...then when adding it all up it becomes unpalatable

It's not logical all all. Some costs can be considered as necessary infrastructure costs, and it would make little sense not to distribute such costs effectively across all customers.

There are other costs which are attributable directly to a given customer, and can easily be identified as such.

There are plenty of examples already that customers pay a charge for certain items that these customers choose to use. It is usually the case for items for which alternatives exist. E.g. if I use an overdraft, I pay for it. If I order extra statements, I pay for it. If I want a cheque stopped, I pay for it. If I want a CHAPS payment, I pay for it. If I want an insurance as part of my current account, I pay for it. And so the list goes on.

chambta

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Perhaps one reason i like them is their existence still keeps people employed. You know in jobs. Those things Mr. Cameron wants everyone to have.

How do they?

JuicyJesus

chambta wrote: »

How do they?

In the same sense as everyone travelling by horse and cart kept people who made carts employed.

1jim

Archi_Bald wrote: »

It's not logical all all. Some costs can be considered as necessary infrastructure costs, and it would make little sense not to distribute such costs effectively across all customers.

There are other costs which are attributable directly to a given customer, and can easily be identified as such.

There are plenty of examples already that customers pay a charge for certain items that these customers choose to use. It is usually the case for items for which alternatives exist. E.g. if I use an overdraft, I pay for it. If I order extra statements, I pay for it. If I want a cheque stopped, I pay for it. If I want a CHAPS payment, I pay for it. If I want an insurance as part of my current account, I pay for it. And so the list goes on.

So, are you happy to pay for each direct debit payment you make?
For each standing order payment?
For each faster payment?
For each cash machine withdrawal?
For each cheque deposited?

The infrastructure exists for all of these, as it does for cheques. These items can all be attributable directly to any given customer that chooses to use these facilities, so following your logic, where a cost exists, and it can be attributed to a customer then the customer should pay.
Or is it just the things you use that are deemed necessary infrastructure costs and therefore bit payable by you?