'hidden' benefits of cheque (v debit card)

darbooka

Walletwatch wrote:

"I also run the risk of stray debits coming to my account and me not noticing it, since I'd assume that these were actually part of my shopping chqs drawn."

Point taken; however, when you pay by debit card not all merchants transaction processes will result in the payment instantly appearing on your account. My bank told me that it depends on the volume of the merchant and the type of arrangement they have. Some, for example, will have any transaction over 50 pounds appear instantly on your account and smaller transactions will be less priority and take longer. Some merchants don't have an instant facility at all and can take a week or more even when you use a debit card. In any event, if you account for a debit card payment then why can't you account for a cheque payment in the same way? You can always just keep a running total of yet unticked / unpaid cheques that are outstanding and know precisely what you can 'expect' to be taken from your funds.

As you yourself have indicated in your post, different strokes for different folks. To me, it is not worth it.

You've made some interesting and useful calculations in your post. However, if you paid by cheque for a purchase of 50 pounds or more and the merchant lost the cheque - would it then be more worth it to you for that year? What if that happened twice a year? There's much more chance of them losing a cheque than any anomoly occuring in your favour with a debit card system. In a world filled with difficult challenges, cheques can be a source of not only extra time but also hope

darbooka

buses7675 wrote:

as far as I know it does only apply to Cahoot users, you get a slightly better interest rate if you only take a debit card, rather than a debit card and cheque book!

If Cahoot is offering such an enticement, perhaps it's worth considering why they seem to prefer that customers don't use cheques. If it's better for the bank, is it necessarily better for the rest of us?

buses7675

Hi,

I can confirm Cahoot do offer that enticement - If you have a current account, without chequebook, you currently get an interest rate of 4.35% AER, but if you take a chequebook, you get an interest rate of 4.25% AER (where the balance is up to £249,999 - Above this, either option pays 3% AER). You can of course open two accounts, use the one without cheques as your main account, but keep the other account (that has a chequebook) with a low or zero balance to cover any cheques - Cahoot also give a free £250 overdraft on all accounts, so this could cover most cheques.

This probably is because it saves them a lot of hassle in not having to deal with cheques, and they are clearly trying to pay people not to use them! Again, is 0.1% gain in interest worth the loss of a chequebook?

Cheers

Steve

Walletwatch

darbooka wrote:

Point taken; however, when you pay by debit card not all merchants transaction processes will result in the payment instantly appearing on your account. My bank told me that it depends on the volume of the merchant and the type of arrangement they have. Some, for example, will have any transaction over 50 pounds appear instantly on your account and smaller transactions will be less priority and take longer. Some merchants don't have an instant facility at all and can take a week or more even when you use a debit card. In any event, if you account for a debit card payment then why can't you account for a cheque payment in the same way? You can always just keep a running total of yet unticked / unpaid cheques that are outstanding and know precisely what you can 'expect' to be taken from your funds.

I agree that delays in claims could happen with debit cards also, but they would be less frequent and for lesser days than with cheques. In fact as I have said earlier, that is the very premise of your original post, which you are suggesting should be taken advantage of. Hence my point that while I am ready to live with having to track the odd debit on a debit card payment that hasn't found it's way thro' to my account, I am not ready to institutionalise this wait for my account to be hit for every shopping transaction I undertake.

darbooka wrote:

You've made some interesting and useful calculations in your post. However, if you paid by cheque for a purchase of 50 pounds or more and the merchant lost the cheque - would it then be more worth it to you for that year? What if that happened twice a year? There's much more chance of them losing a cheque than any anomoly occuring in your favour with a debit card system. In a world filled with difficult challenges, cheques can be a source of not only extra time but also hope

Now, I definitely have a different opinion on this one. I somehow don't feel it right to capitalize on some poor sod's negligence and gain from it. No, I am not being judgmental or conscientious here, it is just that I do not want to gain from somebody else's loss, especially if he's my friendly neighbourhood off-licence shop, and to a lesser extent, if it is the Asda i shop at.

And frankly, I'd consider myself a very pathetic person if I were to issue a chq and then hope that it were lost in transit, so I could count that as a gain.

But as I have already said, your original point is well taken and I don't deny the fact that there may be benefit however small in paying by chq instead of a debit card.

Trow

I would say that the time required to keep track of up to three week old transactions is worth more to me than the interest lost using the debit card.

But thats the great thing about this website - it has all sorts of ideas and tips, and you can pick and choose the ones to suit.

ukric

Im just wondering about what you're saying here....

You've made some interesting and useful calculations in your post. However, if you paid by cheque for a purchase of 50 pounds or more and the merchant lost the cheque - would it then be more worth it to you for that year? What if that happened twice a year? There's much more chance of them losing a cheque than any anomoly occuring in your favour with a debit card system. In a world filled with difficult challenges, cheques can be a source of not only extra time but also hope [/QUOTE]


Presumably you're going on the tact of if they lose a chq you'd have to issue another one and not that "tuff luck you're not getting paid". If it is the latter then a court of law would see if differently if they decided to take it there, as you would still be obligated to pay for the stuff. 7 year rule and all that.

darbooka

ukric wrote:

Im just wondering about what you're saying here....

Presumably you're going on the tact of if they lose a chq you'd have to issue another one and not that "tuff luck you're not getting paid". If it is the latter then a court of law would see if differently if they decided to take it there, as you would still be obligated to pay for the stuff. 7 year rule and all that.

7 year rule, but isn't their also a deadline of 6 months whithin which a cheque must be used lest it is supposed to become invalid? Of course, nobody here is advocating trying to get out of a purchase. But you've satisfied your initial obligation once you provide a cheque. If the merchant lost a cheque, chances are the company would never know it. Your mere giving them a cheque in lieu of another form of payment in no way induces them to lose anything. On the contrary, you're promising to contribute to their cash flow and presumably their profitability. It's their responsibility to keep their books in good order. But if they seem to rely overwhelmingly and increasingly on electronic payment systems and neglect to process some of their payments then it's their fault entirely. Of course, if they did lose a cheque and insisted on a replacement you can insist that they pay or deduct the amount of the cheque cancellation fee for the lost cheque as you need not bear that burden. And if they never realize that it's been lost, and you do, and it really bothers you then you can write to them and tell them you'd like to make sure they didn't lose your money and that if they did you'd like to pay them what they seem to have lost.

darbooka

Walletwatch wrote:

I somehow don't feel it right to capitalize on some poor sod's negligence and gain from it. No, I am not being judgmental or conscientious here, it is just that I do not want to gain from somebody else's loss, especially if he's my friendly neighbourhood off-licence shop, and to a lesser extent, if it is the Asda i shop at.

And frankly, I'd consider myself a very pathetic person if I were to issue a chq and then hope that it were lost in transit, so I could count that as a gain.

If you realised that a cheque you wrote seemed to have been lost by a merchant, or if you otherwise desired to volunnteer to help a company with some of their accounts managment, nothing would stop you from informing them of the apparent lost moneys and helping them recoup the funds from yourself. You might even get a thank-you.

Walletwatch

darbooka wrote:

If you realised that a cheque you wrote seemed to have been lost by a merchant, or if you otherwise desired to volunnteer to help a company with some of their accounts managment, nothing would stop you from informing them of the apparent lost moneys and helping them recoup the funds from yourself. You might even get a thank-you.

Which means I should waste my time trying to put right somebody else's scr*wup over and above spending all that extra time to keep track of cheques drawn!!! No, as I said, darbooka, chqs are definitely not for me. You in fact, just gave me another reason not to make payments by chq and undergo these kinds of hassles.