Can they insist payment only by BACS?

POPPYOSCAR

davidmcn wrote: »

If knowing somebody's sort code and account number was really a big risk, they'd never send out any cheques (as those include their own sort code and account number).

That is not the point.

I do not see why they have the right to deny such a request, if indeed they do.

visidigi

My guess is because for balance purposes having cheques hanging around for months means its had to report - this way BACS makes it an instant process for them and less hassle for recipients.

ease of business and less admin means more money for the company too - thats a good thing if you're a shareholder

POPPYOSCAR

visidigi wrote: »

My guess is because for balance purposes having cheques hanging around for months means its had to report - this way BACS makes it an instant process for them and less hassle for recipients.

ease of business and less admin means more money for the company too - thats a good thing if you're a shareholder

This is only for the rights issue, not dividends.

My biggest problem with them is the refusal to remove the bank details if requested.

davidmcn

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

That is not the point.

I do not see why they have the right to deny such a request, if indeed they do.

If it's not the point, then what's the purpose of your request?

Apart from anything else, I imagine they'd want for audit purposes to keep a record of where they sent payments.

shaun_from_Africa

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I just find it so wrong that they can keep your bank details on file when you have asked for them to be removed.

This does not seem right to me.

Legally, any business must keep financial records for a minimum of 5 years.
If they were to delete all of the details of the bank accounts that money was paid into and an audit or HMRC check was carried out, they would end up in the **** as there would be no trail showing where the money had gone.

If it's the customer and not M&S that were investigated, there would still be problems as there would be money showing as going into their account but there would be nothing in M&S's records to confirm that the payment came from them.

There is also the money laundering regulations:

Record-keeping.

(3) Subject to paragraph (4), the period is five years beginning on the date on

40.—(1) Subject to paragraph (5), a relevant person must keep the records specified in
paragraph (2) for at least the period specified in paragraph (3).
(2) The records are—
(a) a copy of any documents and information obtained by the relevant person to satisfy the
customer due diligence requirements in regulations 28, 29 and 33 to 37;
(b) sufficient supporting records (consisting of the original documents or copies) in respect of a transaction (whether or not the transaction is an occasional transaction) which is the
subject of customer due diligence measures or ongoing monitoring to enable the transaction to be reconstructed

If the banking details showing where the money was deposited have been deleted, the part shown in bold above would be impossible to do.

Jumblebumble

visidigi wrote: »

My guess is because for balance purposes having cheques hanging around for months means its had to report - this way BACS makes it an instant process for them and less hassle for recipients.

ease of business and less admin means more money for the company too - thats a good thing if you're a shareholder

An uncashed cheque is a liability on their books as it could be called in at any time
Bacs avoids this issue