The Co-operative bank have lost a cheque for £6.5k, they have accepted liability but WON’T reimburse

penners324

why are they issuing a cheque and not doing a bank transfer?

Zanderman

penners324 said:

why are they issuing a cheque and not doing a bank transfer?

Presumably because that's how the payment was issued. Querying that doesn't help!

badger09

Zanderman said:

penners324 said:

why are they issuing a cheque and not doing a bank transfer?

Presumably because that's how the payment was issued. Querying that doesn't help!

I suspect penners324 was asking why Barclaycard had issued a cheque in the first place.
A question which had also crossed my mind.

greyteam1959

Lots of big financial institutions seem obsessed with still issuing cheque's.
Not really moving with the times.

Thrugelmir

Singular transactions requires setting up payees etc. Avoids possibility of fraud. Easier to simply raise a cheque. 

brianposter

Surely the standard procedure is for the Coop to pay for an indemnity covering the lost cheque and Barclaycard to re-issue the cheque immediately. If the Coop pay themselves for the indemnity everybody will be back to square one.

Zanderman

greyteam1959 said:

Lots of big financial institutions seem obsessed with still issuing cheque's.
Not really moving with the times.

Nothing wrong with cheques. 
Easy for one-off payments, don't need to know payee account details (which is a faff that most don't need ever again), just the name.
Simple to use. 
And now, with cheque-imaging, easy to pay in. 
So, actually, keeping up with the times.
What's not to like exactly?

badger09

Thrugelmir said:

Singular transactions requires setting up payees etc. Avoids possibility of fraud. Easier to simply raise a cheque. 

That may well be the case but I have received a 'singular transaction', for an amount in excess of £5k from Barclaycard, by direct transfer to my current account (which is not linked by DD to my Barclaycard). Hence my curiosity.

badger09

Zanderman said:

greyteam1959 said:

Lots of big financial institutions seem obsessed with still issuing cheque's.
Not really moving with the times.

Nothing wrong with cheques. 
Easy for one-off payments, don't need to know payee account details (which is a faff that most don't need ever again), just the name.
Simple to use. 
And now, with cheque-imaging, easy to pay in. 
So, actually, keeping up with the times.
What's not to like exactly?

I have nothing against cheques, though seldom use them myself.
Cheque imaging is helpful, but only for relatively small sums 

Zanderman

badger09 said:

Zanderman said:

greyteam1959 said:

Lots of big financial institutions seem obsessed with still issuing cheque's.
Not really moving with the times.

Nothing wrong with cheques. 
Easy for one-off payments, don't need to know payee account details (which is a faff that most don't need ever again), just the name.
Simple to use. 
And now, with cheque-imaging, easy to pay in. 
So, actually, keeping up with the times.
What's not to like exactly?

I have nothing against cheques, though seldom use them myself.
Cheque imaging is helpful, but only for relatively small sums 

I wasn't suggesting you did have a problem with cheques, my comment was responding to greyteam who apparently does!  Cheques clearly do still have a place.  Indeed in the context of the Confirmation of Payee that's now coming in to guard against fraud/accident in bank transfers cheques seem rather sensible as that's exactly what they've always been - a specific instruction confirming the payee. No fancy new confusing software systems needed.  (The OP's saga, of a cheque payment going astray, is a very unusual event.)

My earlier comment in reply to you was merely to referring to the fact that as the OP was paid by cheque, querying the reason for its issue (rather than a transfer) is not really relevant. Perhaps the OP asked to be paid by cheque.  But it doesn't really matter - the saga is about what happened to the cheque not why that method of payment was chosen..