Backward Royal Mail Sent Me A Cheque I Can't Bank...

mwinlow

Following a successful claim for a lost parcel, RM recently posted me a compensation cheque.  Unfortunately, my new on-line bank (Tide) can't accept cheques.  RM say they have no other way of paying me.  So, what happens next?

molerat

Open a proper bank account ?

Zanderman

Tide is not a bank and is therefore limited in its functionality. 
But Tide is, surely, only a business 'bank'.
Do you not have a personal account elsewhere that can accept a cheque?

I would argue RM aren't being backward here, but Tide aren't being forward thinking.  Cheques are still in common usage in many businesses - they are good reliable methods of paying someone, without having to first have their account details.  

All the traditional banks, and many of the fintechs, now accept cheques via their apps.  An app that doesn't is backward.

colsten

Zanderman said:

 . 
But Tide is, surely, only a business 'bank'.
Do you not have a personal account elsewhere that can accept a cheque?

It would depend whether the cheque is for the business or for private purposes. 

 

Zanderman said:

 
I would argue RM aren't being backward here, but Tide aren't being forward thinking.  Cheques are still in common usage in many businesses - they are good reliable methods of paying someone, without having to first have their account details.  
.

I would argue that it is rather backward if a business is unable in this day and age to pay compensation by bank transfer, or credit to the card used when paying for the service (we don’t know who the sender is, but assuming it was the OP, RM should be able to pay to their card).

Zanderman said:

 
All the traditional banks, and many of the fintechs, now accept cheques via their apps.  An app that doesn't is backward.

AFAIK, the max amount for mobile cheque deposit is £1k, with many being just £500. Whilst this may be enough for the OP, it’s a fat lot of use for many business transactions……



OP, can you clarify whether the cheque has been made out to you or to your business? How much is it for? 

callum9999

Zanderman said:

Tide is not a bank and is therefore limited in its functionality. 
But Tide is, surely, only a business 'bank'.
Do you not have a personal account elsewhere that can accept a cheque?

I would argue RM aren't being backward here, but Tide aren't being forward thinking.  Cheques are still in common usage in many businesses - they are good reliable methods of paying someone, without having to first have their account details.  

All the traditional banks, and many of the fintechs, now accept cheques via their apps.  An app that doesn't is backward.

I don't see how anyone could argue that forcing compensation payments to be made by cheque isn't backward...

EssexExile

When my dad died recently lots of rebates and payments were made by cheque, they are far from dead.

Chino

callum9999 said:

I don't see how anyone could argue that forcing compensation payments to be made by cheque isn't backward...

Because cheques avoid the need for the sender to know the recipient's account details which (as the many posts on this forum attest) causes all sorts of problems when either the recipient provides the wrong details, the sender mis-records the details or uses out of date details.
Far better for the sender to provide the recipient with a cheque and let the recipient figure out which account to deposit it in.

Uxb1

Last time I used a solicitor they had gone back to cheques
Reason being
1. They get charged by the bank for CHAPS transfers - unlike them simply writing a cheque.
2. There is less possibility of incorrect bank details being entered up or supplied somewhere along the lines and there was no requirement for the solicitor to have to see an original bank statement of the recipient by way of confirming the bank account was correct.

Zanderman

colsten said:

I would argue that it is rather backward if a business is unable in this day and age to pay compensation by bank transfer, or credit to the card used when paying for the service (we don’t know who the sender is, but assuming it was the OP, RM should be able to pay to their card).

AFAIK, the max amount for mobile cheque deposit is £1k, with many being just £500. Whilst this may be enough for the OP, it’s a fat lot of use for many business transactions……

Re the first point, the business would need to be told the account number for transfer, they don't need this personal info for a cheque.  So it's much easier. Less info needed, more streamlined.

Paying back to the card may well be impossible, as this is a postal item, and so quite likely bought in a Post Office rather than direct from RM.  RM wouldn't have the card details unless it was a direct online purchase (which it might have been, but equally it might not have been).

Re the last point about mobile cheque limits of £1000, it is irrelevant here, this is a postal item.  And not even RM are that expensive yet.

Eco_Miser

Zanderman said:

Re the last point about mobile cheque limits of £1000, it is irrelevant here, this is a postal item.  And not even RM are that expensive yet.

This is compensation for a lost parcel. If the contents were expensive, and an insured service were used, it could be over £1000.

Zanderman

Eco_Miser said:

Zanderman said:

Re the last point about mobile cheque limits of £1000, it is irrelevant here, this is a postal item.  And not even RM are that expensive yet.

This is compensation for a lost parcel. If the contents were expensive, and an insured service were used, it could be over £1000.

Fair point!  Yes, if is for an insured valuable parcel then it could be that much.  
Though I think if it been that much the OP might have mentioned it, as it would make the complaint rather more important. 

[On a related point, thinking about this earlier, I did begin to wonder about how interesting it is that for parcels sent via PO counters any complaint is with RM not PO Counters.  The standard advice for most products is that the retailer is responsible if the product (in this case a delivery service) is faulty, but this isn't the case for the PO.]