Cheque returned "Not signed in accordance with mandate".

Nick_C

Problem with a faster payment is a large amount to a new payee is often held for further security checks. If your bank has a 24 hour call centre, you should be able to call them an expedite the faster payment if it is held up.

Good luck

Westie983

Nick_C wrote: »

Problem with a faster payment is a large amount to a new payee is often held for further security checks. If your bank has a 24 hour call centre, you should be able to call them an expedite the faster payment if it is held up.

Good luck

Very valid point, but worth taking the chance just in case it does arrive in time...

Ponsienella

Foxriver8 wrote: »

"Payable to himself" - should it not have been made payable to Barclays? x

Just noticed it's a cash ISA. I had assumed stocks and shares in which case it would be made out to Barclays in order that they can invest it. If it's cash I'm not sure then.

I made out a cheque recently to myself from our NatWest account and just handed it over at Barclays and asked to pay it into my cash ISA.

Ponsienella

Westie983 wrote: »

I would also try to explain the refusal of the cheque, you mention that it was a two to sign account and was rejected as "not in accordance with mandate" this rings that they were requiring two signatures on the cheque, as the account was originally set up two to sign.

It is over 20 years since we both had to sign cheques and we've never had any problems with any other cheques ever.
I'm hoping the banks will be able to redress the problem between themselves. Fingers crossed.

PeacefulWaters

He's in IT, so all too aware of the security (ahem) of electronic banking.

Is he aware of cheque fraud too?

I'd hazard a guess that there is more fraud per thousand cheques drawn than there is per thousand electronic transactions.

pelirocco

Nick_C wrote: »

Problem with a faster payment is a large amount to a new payee is often held for further security checks. If your bank has a 24 hour call centre, you should be able to call them an expedite the faster payment if it is held up.

Good luck

Too late now but they could have made several smaller amounts by fact pay to avoid checks.it's something I do a lot and so far it's never raised any flags

Reaper

If the delay turns out to be the banks's fault then I believe exceptions can be made and the ISA set up even if the deadline has passed.

If it turns out it was your fault then nothing can be done.

I suggest not leaving it to the last moment for this year's ISA.

AnotherJoe

Let us know what it was please OP.
Seems most likely either (1) signature not matching or (2) someone in bank screwed up and thought two signatures were required when only one was.

dunstonh

3) bank used it for marketing purposes.

I have had two separate occasions where a bank used the not drawn in accordance with mandate reason to return a cheque and asked the person to call into the branch. When they got to the branch, the clerk told them they needed a new form as theirs was old. However, his focus was to get them to see the in-house investment sales rep. With one of the cases, they forgot to get the client to sign the new form and when the client phoned the bank back and spoke to someone else, he was told the one they had was fine and nothing was wrong with it. Dodgy as hell on both occasions.

Flobberchops

dunstonh wrote: »

3) bank used it for marketing purposes.

Ha! That's ballsy. Not sure how effective it'd be as a policy though, surely people would very rapidly cotton on to the true purpose and the bank would suffer a net loss due to reputational damage, customers leaving, etc?

[edit] As to the OP's predicament, it's unfortunate they chose such an unreliable method of transferring money with such a tight deadline. A cheque that kind of value would attract extra scrutiny for possible tampering or signs of fraud, so even something like a slight uncertainty in signature, misspelling or even a perceived variation in handwriting or change of pen colour could trigger a rejection. Even if everything had been in order, there's a chance the cheque clearance timescale would have put them just outside of the last tax year.

If the husband is for some reason less trusting of electronic transfers and encrypted online banking than he is of the notoriously fraud-riddled cheque system, why not go into a branch of Natwest in person and have a transfer made by Faster Payments?

I know it's a moot point now, but honestly, I'm scratching my head trying to work out the logic.