Someone cashed a cheque I wrote 17 months ago - don't they expire after 6 months?

Jumblebumble

Manxman_in_exile said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

... as the writer of the cheque, expect it to be valid indefinitely unless cancelled.

bris said:

Cheques don't actually expire, banks as a courtesy usually contact you to explain it's been presented.

A cheque is like a contract to pay that you can't get out of, It's a legally binding rock solid contract thats like cash as a promise to pay the bearer on demand.

Surely cheques aren't still valid and legally binding after six years, are they?

Why not ?

A cheque is no more than an instruction to your bank to pay on presentation as bris says
 I once gave someone a cheque with the guarantee number on the back for the purchase of a car
They lost it.
My bank told me that they would pay out on it however long it took to be presented.


In case anyone does not know if someone bounces a cheque then they can be sued for the value of the cheque with no consideration why the cheque was stopped and the court will find in their favour

Manxman_in_exile

Manxman_in_exile said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

... as the writer of the cheque, expect it to be valid indefinitely unless cancelled.

bris said:

Cheques don't actually expire, banks as a courtesy usually contact you to explain it's been presented.

A cheque is like a contract to pay that you can't get out of, It's a legally binding rock solid contract thats like cash as a promise to pay the bearer on demand.

Surely cheques aren't still valid and legally binding after six years, are they?

Why not ?

A cheque is no more than an instruction to your bank to pay on presentation as bris says
 I once gave someone a cheque with the guarantee number on the back for the purchase of a car
They lost it.
My bank told me that they would pay out on it however long it took to be presented.


In case anyone does not know if someone bounces a cheque then they can be sued for the value of the cheque with no consideration why the cheque was stopped and the court will find in their favour

But after six years wouldn't any underlying debt be statute-barred?  If the debt is barred, are you saying that a court would still declare a cheque over six years old valid?  That seems a bit counter-intuitive to me and doesn't it render the limitation period rather meaningless?  [Edit:  I'm referring to cheques in general, not bounced cheques specifically]

If so, I didn't realise.

(In the case you quote, was that only because the cheque was guaranteed by the drawer's own bank, or was your bank making a general statement that they would accept any cheque, no matter how old it was?  I suppose the real question is whether the drawer's bank would honour it, not your bank?)

Jumblebumble

Manxman_in_exile said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

... as the writer of the cheque, expect it to be valid indefinitely unless cancelled.

bris said:

Cheques don't actually expire, banks as a courtesy usually contact you to explain it's been presented.

A cheque is like a contract to pay that you can't get out of, It's a legally binding rock solid contract thats like cash as a promise to pay the bearer on demand.

Surely cheques aren't still valid and legally binding after six years, are they?

Why not ?

A cheque is no more than an instruction to your bank to pay on presentation as bris says
 I once gave someone a cheque with the guarantee number on the back for the purchase of a car
They lost it.
My bank told me that they would pay out on it however long it took to be presented.


In case anyone does not know if someone bounces a cheque then they can be sued for the value of the cheque with no consideration why the cheque was stopped and the court will find in their favour

But after six years wouldn't any underlying debt be statute-barred?  If the debt is barred, are you saying that a court would still declare a cheque over six years old valid?  That seems a bit counter-intuitive to me and doesn't it render the limitation period rather meaningless?  [Edit:  I'm referring to cheques in general, not bounced cheques specifically]

If so, I didn't realise.

(In the case you quote, was that only because the cheque was guaranteed by the drawer's own bank, or was your bank making a general statement that they would accept any cheque, no matter how old it was?  I suppose the real question is whether the drawer's bank would honour it, not your bank?)

For clarity I purchased a car and gave him a cheque guaranteed by my card
 He was very annoyed that I would not send another cheque but since no one asked him to render  the cheque unstoppable by insisting on the card number it was his tough luck

Manxman_in_exile

Ah - sorry!  I mis-read your post.  I thought you had received the cheque in payment for a car you were selling, not that you were buying a car with a cheque.  My error!

Regardless of that, are you saying that if A owes B a debt, and A gives B a cheque in payment of that debt, but B mislays it for over six years (so that the original debt is statute-barred), that a court would still enforce payment of the cheque in those circumstances?  As I suggested previously, would that not defeat the whole purpose of the Limitation Act?

(Was your cheque - the one backed up by an old-style cheque guarantee card - over six years old, or did your bank say they would definitely honour it after over six years?)

I may be completely mistaken but I can't see how a court would declare a cheque payable in respect of a statute-barred debt?

Ectophile

I think bringing courts into it is a bit of a red herring.  Cheques don't go though the courts for approval before a bank pays out on them.  Either the bank cashes the cheque or if doesn't.  The court would only be involved after the event.

DB1904

Jumblebumble said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

... as the writer of the cheque, expect it to be valid indefinitely unless cancelled.

bris said:

Cheques don't actually expire, banks as a courtesy usually contact you to explain it's been presented.

A cheque is like a contract to pay that you can't get out of, It's a legally binding rock solid contract thats like cash as a promise to pay the bearer on demand.

Surely cheques aren't still valid and legally binding after six years, are they?

Why not ?

A cheque is no more than an instruction to your bank to pay on presentation as bris says
 I once gave someone a cheque with the guarantee number on the back for the purchase of a car
They lost it.
My bank told me that they would pay out on it however long it took to be presented.


In case anyone does not know if someone bounces a cheque then they can be sued for the value of the cheque with no consideration why the cheque was stopped and the court will find in their favour

But after six years wouldn't any underlying debt be statute-barred?  If the debt is barred, are you saying that a court would still declare a cheque over six years old valid?  That seems a bit counter-intuitive to me and doesn't it render the limitation period rather meaningless?  [Edit:  I'm referring to cheques in general, not bounced cheques specifically]

If so, I didn't realise.

(In the case you quote, was that only because the cheque was guaranteed by the drawer's own bank, or was your bank making a general statement that they would accept any cheque, no matter how old it was?  I suppose the real question is whether the drawer's bank would honour it, not your bank?)

For clarity I purchased a car and gave him a cheque guaranteed by my card
 He was very annoyed that I would not send another cheque but since no one asked him to render  the cheque unstoppable by insisting on the card number it was his tough luck

I thought the card only guaranteed a cheque up to a certain limit. So you're claiming if the cheque was never found it would be tough luck on the dealer and you wouldn't have to pay for the car?

macman

Cheque guarantee cards were scrapped a decade ago (2011) and even then they were limited to £100: not much use for buying a car.

Manxman_in_exile

Ectophile said:

I think bringing courts into it is a bit of a red herring.  Cheques don't go though the courts for approval before a bank pays out on them.  Either the bank cashes the cheque or if doesn't.  The court would only be involved after the event.

It was Jumblebumble who brought the courts into it - not me!   

I think I stand by my contention that cheques can't be valid after more than six years.  And by valid, I mean that a bank could not be forced to honour a cheque over six years old if they chose not to.  If a cheque is drawn to pay a debt and the cheque is not paid in before the debt becomes statute-barred, then I don't see how the cheque can remain valid if the drawer's bank decide not to honour it.  The debt can't be enforced so surely the cheque can't be either?

But I'm willing to accept I may be totally wrong.

And to other posters - I couldn't understand the relevance of a cheque backed by an old-style cheque guarantee card either.

Jumblebumble

macman said:

Cheque guarantee cards were scrapped a decade ago (2011) and even then they were limited to £100: not much use for buying a car.

The car was an old 2CV that I bought to do up and sell and was less than £100

The relevance of the cheque guarantee card was that back then my bank told me that they would pay out for ever
What happens now I have no idea
I struggle to understand why you think a cheque will become invalid after 6 years. It is as i understand an unconditional promise to pay
After all the Bank of England could say that if you produce a withdrawn £10.00 note that has been out of circulation for more than 6 years that they wont pay  but they dont
I still understand that the validity of a cheque is not relevant to they validity of the debt 

Manxman_in_exile

Jumblebumble said:

macman said:

Cheque guarantee cards were scrapped a decade ago (2011) and even then they were limited to £100: not much use for buying a car.

...I struggle to understand why you think a cheque will become invalid after 6 years. It is as i understand an unconditional promise to pay...

...I still understand that the validity of a cheque is not relevant to they validity of the debt 

This is one response I got to a thread I started some years ago about my bank not accepting a cheque after six months.  I have formatted in bold the bits that seem to be relevant to the six years question:

Cheques and Cheque Clearing | Cheque & Credit Clearing Company (chequeandcredit.co.uk)

"Is it true that cheques are only valid for six months?

No. A cheque is valid for as long as the debt between the two parties (i.e. the person writing the cheque and the person they give it to) exists. In other words, cheques don’t have an expiry date. However, it is common banking practice to reject cheques that are over six months old to protect the person who has written the cheque, in case the payment has been made another way or the cheque has been lost or stolen. This six-month timeframe is at the discretion of individual banks. It should not be assumed that cheques older than six months would automatically be rejected as the only definite way to cancel a cheque is for the person who wrote it to request that a stop be placed on it. If you have a cheque that you want to pay in that is more than six months old, your best course of action is to not pay it in and instead obtain a replacement from the person who gave it to you. Where there is a dispute, a cheque remains legally valid in order to provide proof of the existence of a debt for a period of six years, which is the Statute of Limitations"

That appears - to me at least - to say that cheques remain valid for a period of six years.  If they in fact remained valid indefinitely, I would expect them to mention that fact as it would seem directly relevant to answering any question about whether cheques are only valid for six months.  Wouldn't you agree?

Out of date cheques — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Jumblebumble said:

...After all the Bank of England could say that if you produce a withdrawn £10.00 note that has been out of circulation for more than 6 years that they wont pay  but they dont...

Are you sure that point is relevant to this question?