NatWest refusing A&L cheque to pay a bill

JamPot

I've done a search on this and found nothign obvious so here goes.

We have a NatWest current account and also an A&L current account.

When it comes to credit card statement payment time, or another bill needs paying we don't always have the full funds in the NatWest account.

So we use a cheque from A&L, either to pay the bill in full, or often, pay a part of the bill, the rest being covered by a NatWest cheque.

Within the last month or so staff at the NatWest branch we are using have (variously and inconsistently) said that we cannot use any A&L cheque to pay the bill at their branch. We've checked with the customer service line too and they seem to be singing the same tune!

We have still be told that this is the case in situations where part of the bill is being paid for using a NatWest cheque.

Is this allowable? Can the bank NOT take other banks' cheques?

I understand that if you are paying money into your account at another bank via NatWest then their would be a few (and probably rightly so) but this is not such a case.

As a clearing bank I thought NatWest were obliged to take any cheque in payment of a bill. and put them through the clearing system - isnt that why they are classified as a clearing bank, or are we missing something?

Of course the fact that we have an account with them at least makes us a customer of the bank, and therefore different (privelaged?) compared to someone just 'coming in off the street to do it.'

Can anyone enlighten us as to whether this is allowable; are there any written rules I could consult? Anyone else suffered?

It strikes us it could be the bank just trying already to make it difficult for anyone to do anything but only use their products in their entirety - effectively making it difficult for you to operate accounts elsewhere.

Any comments/observations/links for info welcome

jonesMUFCforever

If there is no banking connection then the bank is correct in not taking the cheque.

So if you have a Nat West bill you can use your A&L cheque - if it bounces your NW account will be debited back.
If you want to pay a 3rd party bill and the cheque bounces NW will be left with your A&l cheque with nobody to debit back.

Hazzanet

The technical name for this scenario is a "triangular credit". NatWest have refused these for years. I worked for them between 1999 and 2000 and they refused them back then. It's nothing new I'm afraid.

Could you have paid by online banking?

Poosmate

Don't know if I'm missing something here but if you know there is a bill to be paid and you know your funds in Natwest won't cover that bill then why don't you just pay an A&L cheque into your Natwest account and then pay in full with a Natwest cheque? You have at least 14 days notice to pay a bill (if it's a credit card) and longer if its a utility bill so there is no worry about funds from the A&L cheque clearing in time.

They can't refuse to accept a cheque issued by another bank which you want to pay into your account.

Problem solved?

Poo

amandathepanda

If it is an Alliance and Leicester cheque, why aren't you paying it there?

MarkyMarkD

You can't pay third party bills over the counter at A&L branches.

But I don't understand any reason, at all, for paying bills of this type over the counter anyway when you can do it by telephone or online banking just as quickly and without having to queue up.

I often question why people have multiple current accounts, as the whole problem here seems to be being caused by the existence of different accounts. Why not just have one account and keep a separate record of the money you have for different purposes, if that's the reason for the multiple accounts?

YorkshireBoy

amandathepanda wrote: »

If it is an Alliance and Leicester cheque, why aren't you paying it there?

Maybe it's a NatWest credit card bill?

Hazzanet

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I often question why people have multiple current accounts, as the whole problem here seems to be being caused by the existence of different accounts. Why not just have one account and keep a separate record of the money you have for different purposes, if that's the reason for the multiple accounts?

I've always had at least two current accounts - one for the bills to go out of (all DD's and SO's) and the other for my 'spending'. This has always worked fantastically for me and I've never had a problem. My record keeping's good, but I'd rather just keep these two pots separate. That said, if I'm charged monthly for the two accounts in the future, I'll be setting up record-keeping systems and ditching account number two!

Poosmate

I do exactly the same as Hazzanet, I know exactly where I stand. Pay goes in, bills money goes out same day to bills account. I know all of the most important bills are going to be paid. That account is finely tuned so that about £5 more goes in than comes out so there is a very small emergency fund growing there and can be withdrawn in case of need. What's left in my account is what I have to live on for the month.

Having said that, I do understand what MarkyMarkD is saying, having several current accounts with different banks is alien to me.

Hazzanet, I'm also with you on the being charged for the current accounts too. If/when it happens I'll be closing one of my accounts as well. I only hope that my income is much more than my expenditure by then as, although I am an accomplished juggler and avoider of any kind of bank/cc charges I have yet to discover how I have managed these miracles! lol.

Poo

jonesMUFCforever

I also have 2 accounts - one to pay bills and one for everything else - the only difference with OP is that they are with the same bank!
So if I am short in one account I can immediately transfer money to it from the other.

JamPot

Dear all, thank you for the responses. I'm still digesting them. Yes, we have two current accounts for budgeting purposes as others have described above - isnt that good MSE practice?

I am still at a loss then as to what the function of a clearing bank really is then if its not to help manage the flow of monies associated with cheques. Whilst I can see the arguement about possible non-payment etc, it strikes me that this is a possibility for the whole banking system, even within a bank. Having the funds, writing the cheque and removing them in the meanwhile (maybe because they are needed for something else) is a possibility and if you of that sort of persuasion not to hang around for the consequences the same debt would arise. Anyway, looks like we will have to modify the way we operate :-(

Its just that the bank also seems to have been happy to do this for years and suddenly has 'changed its mind on the practice'!

Thanks again one and all