Someone just cashed a cheque I wrote seven years on

JuicyJesus

grumbler wrote: »

I don't see any fundamental difference between cheques and card transactions. However, the rules are different without any good reason.

With cheques it's a matter of law; card payments are solely governed by the Visa/MasterCard/Amex/whatever scheme rules.

The rules are different because the rules are different, is the only explanation really!

agrinnall

octopusinkink wrote: »

I complained to several different departments and was eventually refunded in full by one sympathetic employee who made me agree to a disclaimer that the bank had technically not made an error as cheques under £1000 aren't checked by humans and are still valid for a long time, but agreed seven years was pretty crazy. I think the guy got his money but I didn't lose out in the end so... win win? I had the rest of the book of cheques cancelled in case he'd hoarded any others.

Good result for you, very poor result for the rest of the bank's customers and/or shareholders. I hope the employee who took that decision isn't facing a disciplinary.

JuicyJesus

agrinnall wrote: »

Good result for you, very poor result for the rest of the bank's customers and/or shareholders. I hope the employee who took that decision isn't facing a disciplinary.

They probably took the view that the chances of paying both £550 to FOS and then the amount of the cheque anyway were high enough to justify it.


If I were OP I'd think Christmas had come early...

grumbler

JuicyJesus wrote: »

With cheques it's a matter of law; card payments are solely governed by the Visa/MasterCard/Amex/whatever scheme rules.

The rules are different because the rules are different, is the only explanation really!

Well, there are many stupid laws around that need changes and keep being changed (like rules), unfortunately too slowly.

Adverse possession and squatters' rights spring to mind.

"Governed by law" isn't a synonym or correct/right/reasonable...

System

grumbler wrote: »

Incorrect. They have no right to take money and if they do it can be claimed back under chargeback rules
I don't see any fundamental difference between cheques and card transactions. However, the rules are different without any good reason.
OOT. The point was that the cheque system was flawed. And sometimes it's the only option. At least was in the past, when I was using cheques to pay.

Proud to be

The payment is still due and as I said, most issuers won't issue a chargeback if they account still exists and has funds.

The point of cash and bank transfers, is that giving them cash or sending the funds they have discharged any liability. The funds would have been in the other persons account in 2010 or had they re-found the cash they could have spent it.

A cheque is simply an instruction to pay. You seem to be confusing it with a giro type system where payment is 'pushed' to the recipient.

The word isn't grumbler but cantankerous...

grumbler

Heng_Leng wrote: »

The payment is still due and as I said, most issuers won't issue a chargeback if they account still exists and has funds.

They will - as per the rules. You said it wrong.

The point of cash and bank transfers, is that giving them cash or sending the funds they have discharged any liability. The funds would have been in the other persons account in 2010 or had they re-found the cash they could have spent it.

??

A cheque is simply an instruction to pay.

Yes

You seem to be confusing it with a giro type system where payment is 'pushed' to the recipient.

I am not confusing anything. What I say is that it's wrong for a one-off payment 'instruction' to remain active indefinitely even if the law says so.

The word isn't grumbler but cantankerous...

English isn't my first language, and I had to look it up.

System

grumbler wrote: »

They will - as per the rules. You said it wrong.
??
Yes
I am not confusing anything. What I say is that it's wrong for a one-off payment 'instruction' to remain active indefinitely even if the law says so.
English isn't my first language, and I had to look it up.

Chargebacks are always at the discretion of the card issuer.

grumbler

Well, if you say so.

I think that all card issuers must follow the rules of the payments processing company that they use for their cards. And 6-months' limit is clearly listed among reasons for chargeback. At least for Visa/Mastercard. Pretty sure, the same for Amex.

The only left for the card issuers is to check the facts and then follow the rules.

bobobski

octopusinkink wrote: »

I complained to several different departments and was eventually refunded in full by one sympathetic employee who made me agree to a disclaimer that the bank had technically not made an error as cheques under £1000 aren't checked by humans and are still valid for a long time, but agreed seven years was pretty crazy. I think the guy got his money but I didn't lose out in the end so... win win? I had the rest of the book of cheques cancelled in case he'd hoarded any others.

I'm confused as to why you wanted the money back. You owed him money, you gave him money, he didn't cash that money for ages but I don't see how that's relevant to you. Congratulations for getting something for nothing, but as someone else has said, that is no good thing for the bank's other customers and potentially the customer service representative.