What Happened Here?

Sea_Shell

PoGee said:

Sea_Shell - it was an executor paying me from an account the relative held jointly with the deceased (supposedly).

Sorry, is the "executor" the same person as the "relative"?

That account should automatically become the surviving account holders.  However, if they've notified the bank that one of the account holders is now deceased, someone may have (incorrectly) marked the account as frozen.

Has the executor (relative?) been able to use that account for other payments, without issue?

PoGee

The deceased had a joint account with the 'relative/executor' that contained rental income. It was agreed between the executors and solicitor, that this account would remain in the relative's name, so that money could be taken out for repairs to the rental property. At the end of the sale and winding up of the estate, the relative was to share the remainder in this account between the beneficiaries (who are also executors). The solicitor included this account in confirmation - he just didn't take part in the sharing out.
The relative transferred the money from the 'joint' account, into his own account, and wrote a personal cheque. I had thought it was a cheque from the joint account. My bank say the payer refused to provide extra security information, which is why it was returned.

p00hsticks

PoGee said:

The relative transferred the money from the 'joint' account, into his own account, and wrote a personal cheque. I had thought it was a cheque from the joint account. My bank say the payer refused to provide extra security information, which is why it was returned.

So that bank saw a transfer in followed by a cheque (several cheques ?) for a relatively large sum being almost immediately presented on the account - one can see how these days that will have flagged alarm bells at the bank,. especially if the payer was unco-operative in answering security questions. Thanks for giving us an update. 

Section62

Zanderman said:

Rob5342 said:

Did they definitely have funds available when the cheque was presented? If they are still using cheques then they don't sound very financially savvy, so could it be that the funds weren't actually cleared and/or that they didn't understand that cheques get processed more quickly these days?

Writing a cheque does not imply someone isn't 'financially savvy'!

Cheques are in regular use by many.  Despite what you might think from your own habits and the rise in online banking.

Cheques are also still a very common way to dole out inheritance.  Which this one was.

Yes, writing a cheque would be my goto method to make a one-off transfer of £20k to someone, particularly where it is possible that proof the payment was made may be required later.

I'm shocked to discover this means I'm apparently not financially savvy.

sheramber

For their own reasons, some people do not wish to give their bank details to someone else.

For an executry , a cashed cheque is proof of payment, rather than having to produce a bank statement.

Daliah

sheramber said:

For their own reasons, some people do not wish to give their bank details to someone else.

So they would write a cheque, which has their name, their sort code and their account number printed on it?

Zanderman

Daliah said:

sheramber said:

For their own reasons, some people do not wish to give their bank details to someone else.

So they would write a cheque, which has their name, their sort code and their account number printed on it?

You know that's not really the point being made Daliah.  The point being made is that the recipient of the money isn't giving any info away.

I don't understand the anti-cheque rhetoric we see on here now and then.  Yes, cheques are an old system. And yes there were proposals to stop using them entirely.  But that was abandoned. Cheques work. Very well.  They are used extensively in business still and by many for personal payments.  They are increasingly accepted by scanning into apps so seem to be here to stay and (perhaps) might now have a resurgence because of the apps..

And, critically, they keep the responsibility of money being paid in correctly to the payee rather than the payer. 

This is not insignificant.   There's no need to know someone's account number - and take on the responsibility for getting it right - when paying someone by cheque.  The cheque gives the recipient that responsibility - which seems fair enough to me - and also the option to pay into any of their accounts, which is also great.

grumbler

sheramber said:

For an executry , a cashed cheque is proof of payment, rather than having to produce a bank statement.

What's a 'cashed cheque' that can serve as a proof? Just curious...

Daliah said:

sheramber said:

For their own reasons, some people do not wish to give their bank details to someone else.

So they would write a cheque, which has their name, their sort code and their account number printed on it?

No, they wouldn't - exactly for this reason.

Fighter1986

Sorry why didn't they just do a BACS transfer to you? Doesn't matter if the £20K is over the Faster Payments limit, the funds would still reach your account in the same time or faster than a cheque clearing. 

Zanderman

Fighter1986 said:

Sorry why didn't they just do a BACS transfer to you? Doesn't matter if the £20K is over the Faster Payments limit, the funds would still reach your account in the same time or faster than a cheque clearing. 

I would guess because they didn't want to.  They wanted to use cheques.  Speed of payment isn't, for most payments, important. This was an inheritance, most inheritance payments take months because of probate, an extra few days because of cheque clearing is hardly a problem.