MSE News: Cheques will NOT be axed after U-turn

Valor · 13 July 2011 at 12:18PM

JuicyJesus wrote: »

What a pity.

They're fraud prone, slow and outmoded. They really need to die.

Agree with this, it's a shame the industry didn't stick to it's guns.

I can only hope that (as mentioned above) cheques attract much higher processing fees rather than having the costs (processing + fraud) covered by the rest of the industry.

Val.

premierfella · 13 July 2011 at 12:19PM

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

So what are these "higher costs", compared to debit/credit card and cash handling?

Probably a question best answered by the banks.

A quick google came up with this:
http://www.consumerchoices.co.uk/the-hidden-costs-of-paying-for-your-broadband.html
which quoted figures apparently from the British Retail Consortium (I can't vouch for the accuracy of the article or the figures)

Cheques: 53p
Credit card: 35p
Debit card: 8p
Cash: 2p

Sterling · 13 July 2011 at 1:09PM

For those people who no longer use or need cheques, what does it matter whether cheques are scrapped or not?

For those people who still need cheques, this is a great victory for common sense.

rb10 · 13 July 2011 at 1:27PM

Sterling wrote: »

For those people who no longer use or need cheques, what does it matter whether cheques are scrapped or not?

Because occasionally, some people will insist on paying me by cheque.

I received a cheque the other day, from someone who could easily have paid me online. Now I have to make a special trip to the bank to pay it in.

Sterling wrote: »

For those people who still need cheques, this is a great victory for common sense.

If they'd stuck with their deadline of 2018, then by that time, I believe that no one would actually still need cheques.

It's similar to digital TV. Just a short time ago, that didn't work in many areas of the country. But they set deadlines and are sticking to them. Now, in many areas, they've removed the outdated technology.

Sometimes, people have to be pushed towards new technology in order for it to work effectively. They did that with TV, and so now digital works better than it did before the switchover.

Sterling · 13 July 2011 at 3:31PM

rh10 wrote: »

I received a cheque the other day, from someone who could easily have paid me online. Now I have to make a special trip to the bank to pay it in.

So, in your world all cheque users in the land would have to suffer because you can’t be bothered to nip to the bank?

pinkfluffybabe · 13 July 2011 at 3:42PM

I think this is a good decision.

I'm on a few local committees and its just not practical for us to operate without chequebooks. We need two signatories for each cheque for security reasons - how would we do that online?

rb10 · 13 July 2011 at 4:07PM

Sterling wrote: »

So, in your world all cheque users in the land would have to suffer because you can’t be bothered to nip to the bank?

No, they wouldn't suffer at all. They'd just pay using telephone or internet banking. Easier for me as I don't have to make a trip to the bank. Easier for them as they don't have to get a cheque to me.

pinkfluffybabe wrote: »

I'm on a few local committees and its just not practical for us to operate without chequebooks. We need two signatories for each cheque for security reasons - how would we do that online?

Easy. CAF Bank. From their website:

As an additional security measure, transactions carried out online require dual authorisation. So once a transaction has been initiated online, it requires another person authorised by your organisation to approve it before any money leaves your account.

A million times easier than tracking down someone else to countersign your cheque.

IceQueen · 13 July 2011 at 4:29PM

rb10, in the time you’ve spent posting on this thread, you could have gone to the bank. Stop being so selfish, there’s a lot of people out there who want to use cheques, including me.

I was recently owed some money by a firm of solicitors who’d wrapped up my late mum’s estate. They offered to send me the money electronically to my bank but said that this would cost me £20. I asked for a cheque instead which cost me nothing. What would you have done?

tabby_cats_mum · 14 July 2011 at 7:37AM

I run a small charity lottery and I'm delighted cheques are staying as it would be really difficult to pay the winners. Cash is logistically impossible and people just do not like giving their bank details so paying direct into their bank accounts isn't an option either. Plus it means I can still get a cheque from my mum for my birthday!!;)

edda · 14 July 2011 at 11:21AM

A year ago, we received a cheque from National Grid made payable to both of us.

This was payment against a handful of shares (from back in the days of privitisation). Dividends are paid into a bank account - but National Grid told us as payment was not a dividend, we couldn't ask for it to be sent direct to the bank.

And they wouldn't rewrite the cheque to one person only, as the shares are in 2 names.

We had to open a new account just to pay the cheque into - as all accounts in joint names did not accept cheques being paid in.

Do these organisations bother talking to each other?

By the way - I do think cheques should be retained. But why quote someone from the Nationwide Building Society in your news article defending common sense? Nationwide were one of the 1st to withdraw the cheque guarantee card. :mad:

MSE News: Cheques will NOT be axed after U-turn

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free