Banking at the Post Office - here's what you need to know

its_all_over

A_Nice_Englishman wrote: »

If they've got a cheque book they've got a bank account and except in very limited circumstances (like the charity I mention above) will be able to make an electronic payment. Most companies don't accept cheques and probably don't issue them either.

I would presume you are very young, many older people could well have a cheque book with their bank account but may not actually use internet banking.

Also, I'd be surprised if any big company has done away with the facility to make payments by cheque, it's nothing like the same as retailers not accepting cheques from customers.

You do know that there are still millions of cheques sent and used every week? The last report I remember reading said the UK still used over half a BILLION cheques a year.

A_Nice_Englishman

its_all_over wrote: »

I would presume you are very young, many older people could well have a cheque book with their bank account but may not actually use internet banking.

Also, I'd be surprised if any big company has done away with the facility to make payments by cheque, it's nothing like the same as retailers not accepting cheques from customers.

You do know that there are still millions of cheques sent and used every week? The last report I remember reading said the UK still used over half a BILLION cheques a year.

No im 58, though I had one of the first online bank accounts in the UK in the 1980s and spent 20 years computerising financial systems so am perhaps not typical of my age group.

The older people who only cheques you mention are among those I was arguing in my first post are unable to use technology and the Post Office was providing a 'social service' for.

I know huge numbers of cheques are still written, thought a fraction of the peak number. I'm just surprised that they are.

david39

The criticism of long waits in short queues in post offices because of the complex transactions that can take place over the counters applies equally to banks now.
This is because online banking has taken over mundane transactions so most of the people in the queue are there because they are trying to do something they cannot do via the internet. Few are there simply to hand over money, most are querying their accounts, changing foreign currency or doing something else that takes several minutes.
It's quite common to go into a bank now, and wait 10 minutes to get to a cashier's window and leave while most other windows have been dealing with one customer each on complex matters.
On the other hand,I only go into a branch now if I have a problem that will also take up a lengthy period.

A_Nice_Englishman

ValiantSon wrote: »

There is a risk, here, of you assuming that your experiences are the same as everyone else's.

There are a number of good reasons not use the cash in the case of group based purchasing, including added protection through using a credit card.

I've had several cheques from solicitors, and several from businesses. In the last 12 months, I have dealt with four such cheques (business and solicitor).

Lots of pubs outside of large towns a and cities still don't provide contactless payment. I know lots of tradesmen who don't have car readers either, and some who don't take electronic transfers either.

I'm not that surprised that so much cash still circulates, although I would be happy to see it go if I could use my cards without any costs.

I take your point about credit card protection. In that case I'd probably, as I said, keep the money and delay my next cash withdrawal unless the amount was so large as to cash flow problems.

Those businesses are making life harder for themselves and their customers. Why would a tradesman or publiican want to take time out of his day to go and pay in his takings only for his future customers to withdraw that same cash to pay him? Why would a business make a payment by cheque which they will be charged more for by their bank and force the payee to visit a bank (or post office) to pay in?

Good news! Retailers are no longer allowed to charge extra for card payments .

ValiantSon

A_Nice_Englishman wrote: »

I take your point about credit card protection. In that case I'd probably, as I said, keep the money and delay my next cash withdrawal unless the amount was so large as to cash flow problems.

That cash will earn interest in my bank account, and is a lot more secure than in my wallet.

A_Nice_Englishman wrote: »

Those businesses are making life harder for themselves and their customers. Why would a tradesman or publiican want to take time out of his day to go and pay in his takings only for his future customers to withdraw that same cash to pay him? Why would a business make a payment by cheque which they will be charged more for by their bank and force the payee to visit a bank (or post office) to pay in?

Perhaps you should speak to the may hundreds (thousands?) of companies who operate in this way then.

Why do you think it costs them more to issue a cheque?

Small businesses have a variety of costs, and for some cash and/or cheques make greater sense. I have a gardener who I pay in cash every fortnight, while my window cleaner prefers to be paid by bank transfer. Both are small businesses, registered as limited companies, but they each choose a different approach as it works best for them, based on a varitety of criteria.

Ultimately, however, I am not the one who chooses. If I told the gardener that I wanted to pay using my debit card (nice chap that he is notwithstanding) he would tell me I couldn't. If I offered him a cheque instead, he would equally tell me that he doesn't accept cheques.

I do feel that you have a set model for the world in your head and you can't see why others view things differently. The beach ball doesn't look the same on your side as it does on somebody else's.

A_Nice_Englishman wrote: »

Good news! Retailers are no longer allowed to charge extra for card payments .

Not actually true. You cannot be charged a fee for using a card if no fees are charged for using an alternative payment method, but if charges are equally applied to all payment methods, then you can be charged a fee, so it is entirely possible to be charged a fee for using a card. A simple way around this is to limit the payment options for distance selling to only include debit or credit cards, which carry a service fee, while offering no fees for payment via any method at the point of service.

A_Nice_Englishman

ValiantSon wrote: »

That cash will earn interest in my bank account, and is a lot more secure than in my wallet.



Perhaps you should speak to the may hundreds (thousands?) of companies who operate in this way then.

Why do you think it costs them more to issue a cheque?

Small businesses have a variety of costs, and for some cash and/or cheques make greater sense. I have a gardener who I pay in cash every fortnight, while my window cleaner prefers to be paid by bank transfer. Both are small businesses, registered as limited companies, but they each choose a different approach as it works best for them, based on a varitety of criteria.

Ultimately, however, I am not the one who chooses. If I told the gardener that I wanted to pay using my debit card (nice chap that he is notwithstanding) he would tell me I couldn't. If I offered him a cheque instead, he would equally tell me that he doesn't accept cheques.

I do feel that you have a set model for the world in your head and you can't see why others view things differently. The beach ball doesn't look the same on your side as it does on somebody else's.



Not actually true. You cannot be charged a fee for using a card if no fees are charged for using an alternative payment method, but if charges are equally applied to all payment methods, then you can be charged a fee, so it is entirely possible to be charged a fee for using a card. A simple way around this is to limit the payment options for distance selling to only include debit or credit cards, which carry a service fee, while offering no fees for payment via any method at the point of service.

I admit I do have difficulty understanding why people want to mess around handling cash and cheques when not absolutely necessary. Nevertheless, I respect their right to do it (and still use the cash-only pub!).

You said you'd be happy to see cash go if you could use your cards without any costs. My point was that you can. Cash price=card price.

Zanderman

A_Nice_Englishman wrote: »

I'd put those who pay you by cheque in the 'unable to use technology' category to be honest.

Lots of companies, even banks, still issue cheques. Are they 'unable to use technology'?

A_Nice_Englishman wrote: »

I know huge numbers of cheques are still written, thought a fraction of the peak number. I'm just surprised that they are.

Why surprised?
Cheques work.
They don't need any electronic devices.
They are fairly risk free - you pay a named person, not an anonymous 6 figure sortcode/8 figure bank account.

And there are plenty of ways to pay them in. So why be surprised? Lots of companies issue cheques. Lots of people issue cheques.

It's not the domain of the old-fashioned or the technology-averse. It's simply one of many ways to transfer money. Which many people and organisations still use.

There are many alternatives - and yes, electronic transfer by many differing methods, is probably the majority way these days.

But there's nowt wrong with cheques - they even have some advantages - as long as you have somewhere to pay them in - which is what this thread is, at least partially, about.

Nothing to be surprised about surely?

A_Nice_Englishman

Zanderman wrote: »

Lots of companies, even banks, still issue cheques. Are they 'unable to use technology'?



Why surprised?
Cheques work.
They don't need any electronic devices.
They are fairly risk free - you pay a named person, not an anonymous 6 figure sortcode/8 figure bank account.

And there are plenty of ways to pay them in. So why be surprised? Lots of companies issue cheques. Lots of people issue cheques.

It's not the domain of the old-fashioned or the technology-averse. It's simply one of many ways to transfer money. Which many people and organisations still use.

There are many alternatives - and yes, electronic transfer by many differing methods, is probably the majority way these days.

But there's nowt wrong with cheques - they even have some advantages - as long as you have somewhere to pay them in - which is what this thread is, at least partially, about.

Nothing to be surprised about surely?

Like I said earlier, I've been banking online since the 1980s and spent a large part of my career getting computers to move money around in the required quantities and directions so I'm atypical of my age group.

To me, cheques are as archaic as hanging up your rugs outside and beating them to get rid of the dust, taking yourself and your dirty clothes to the public baths to wash or boiling water over a coal fire to move a train.


The banks are modernising the system though

https://www.chequeandcredit.co.uk

Zanderman

A_Nice_Englishman wrote: »

To me, cheques are as archaic as hanging up your rugs outside and beating them to get rid of the dust, taking yourself and your dirty clothes to the public baths to wash or boiling water over a coal fire to move a train.

To you, yes. But surely the response to you on here have shown that you are mistaken. Cheques are not archaic, they are still widely used and work perfectly well for many companies and people.

The link you give to the modernisation of the system proves the point - they are still very much used, the modernising is aiding paying them in via imaging and implicitly proves they still have a significant present and future.

It could, therefore, be argued that yours is the archaic view!

A_Nice_Englishman

Zanderman wrote: »

To you, yes. But surely the response to you on here have shown that you are mistaken. Cheques are not archaic, they are still widely used and work perfectly well for many companies and people.

The link you give to the modernisation of the system proves the point - they are still very much used, the modernising is aiding paying them in via imaging and implicitly proves they still have a significant present and future.

It could, therefore, be argued that yours is the archaic view!

Let's say there are much easier ways of moving money around but many people like to send and receive cheques so Banks ( reluctantly ?) still facilitate this and Post Offices make some money out of it which helps keep them viable. Ultimately the cost is met by bank customers (including those who don't use the service).