£10 fee for stopping a cheque -- a "jolt" for anyone else?

[Trackman]

I've found that it's now easier to deposit them than it used to be, funnily! I can go to my local branch and use my card in a machine, feed in the cheque, it detects the amount automatically and I get a photograph of the cheque printed on my receipt. Cheques can also be deposited using my mobile app wherever I go, so even more convenient!

I did that once, after leaving the bank I checked the balance on my phone and it was there!
I don't like these new(ish) machines to pay in cash, half the time it doesn't work especially if you are paying in like £300 - found out the notes have to be all the same way up. Luckily (or unluckily) I don't do this very often.

Going back on topic, I had a bounced cheque and the charge was £10. Think around 1995 - I had all my finances in order, I was caught out because of when they cashed it. I rung the bank up and spoke nicely rather than rant and rave and they waived the charge.

 

[najaB]

I don't like these new(ish) machines to pay in cash, half the time it doesn't work especially if you are paying in like £300 - found out the notes have to be all the same way up.

That's odd. The one at my local bank branch doesn't care which way round they are. It also has no problem with Scottish vs English notes either. Haven't had any Northern Irish ones yet to try in it.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's odd. The one at my local bank branch doesn't care which way round they are. It also has no problem with Scottish vs English notes either. Haven't had any Northern Irish ones yet to try in it.

If it's a Natwest machine I find it doesn't like the First Trust banknotes. All Scottish notes fine though as you say.

 

[Busaholic]

And this would be because? I would have expected this to go the same way, shuffling bits of paper that even the banks now have reduced to a picture image on an app (to pay in). By the same token terms such as ‘Refer to Drawer’ are being consigned to histor.

There are still many legal processes which require honoured cheques to complete them. You could say this is historic and an anachronism, but they fulfill a purpose not easily replicated in some cases. My father spent his working life at the Bank of England and he could recite the top ten reasons why cheque retention is absolutely imperative, in both national and international affairs.

 

[danm14]

If it's a Natwest machine I find it doesn't like the First Trust banknotes.

First Trust Bank (now AIB NI) ceased issuing banknotes in early 2019, within about six months they were effectively out of circulation in Northern Ireland, and they ceased to be legal currency in June 2022 - so this isn't hugely surprising.

 

[Trackman]

That's odd. The one at my local bank branch doesn't care which way round they are. It also has no problem with Scottish vs English notes either. Haven't had any Northern Irish ones yet to try in it.

Looking back I think the problem I was shoving £300 at a time and the bank notes were not flush so to speak.

 

[simonw]

There are still many legal processes which require honoured cheques to complete them. You could say this is historic and an anachronism, but they fulfill a purpose not easily replicated in some cases. My father spent his working life at the Bank of England and he could recite the top ten reasons why cheque retention is absolutely imperative, in both national and international affairs.

What reasons are they?W

Businesses I've run the finance dept for did away with cheques many years ago. Receiving one was a pita.

 

[Calthrop]

I still pay for just about everything by cheque or cash, and use cheques to draw cash. I have started to pay my gardener in cash: I was the last person still paying him by cheque and it necessitated a special journey in to town to pay it in. It is much easier to keep tabs on things if you have a cheque stub, rather than an entry on your monthly bank statement which is all too often to some company which has a name nothing like any business you paid out to.

A bit different with me -- I don't find cheques particularly convenient in practical terms; just -- as per my OP -- I enjoy still using them in the (becoming rarer) circumstances when I can: for the perverse old-fashionedness of it; plus, I'm a technophobe, not happy with most on-line money doings (use cash as far as possible, for both reasons as given).

With the interestingly different findings-and-citings to which this thread has given rise: I went back to my Lloyds branch today, and -- emphasising that it was just "curiosity" -- asked the guy at the "enquiries and complicated stuff" desk about this matter. He consulted relevant sources; and told me that Lloyds' policy is: in "personal" cheque situations (as mine is), there is no charge for one's stopping a cheque. If it's a "business" matter, there's a £10 charge. I recounted to him, my experience of a few days ago (told that it would cost me £10): he opined that -- with cheque use having become basically fairly rare, and with that progressively becoming more so -- not all bank staff are as au fait with the rules concerning cheques, as they might be; this likely applying to his young lady colleague who told me the other day, that I'd have to pay £10.

 

[Busaholic]

What reasons are they?W

Businesses I've run the finance dept for did away with cheques many years ago. Receiving one was a pita.

Sorry, can't say I ever really listened to him on the subject, I do know that on a couple of occasions when I've been reading reports online or in newspapers they have given examples of why cheques are still needed.

I can see, though, that many businesses would have been able to dispense with them some while back.

P.S. HMRC are quite keen to still issue cheques for tax refunds, probably because they can save money by not depositing sums in bank accounts by transfer but spinning out the issue of cheques, some of which will never get banked. My evidence for this comes in the form of a letter I received from them today concerning a significant refund they owe me. I had three weeks from the supposed date of issue of the letter to apply online for it to go directly into my bank account, failing which I must wait a minimum of a further six weeks to receive a cheque. The three weeks expires next Monday and in return for my compliance I'm obliged to conduct all future communications with HMRC online, which I'm not prepared to do.

 

[simonw]

Sorry, can't say I ever really listened to him on the subject, I do know that on a couple of occasions when I've been reading reports online or in newspapers they have given examples of why cheques are still needed.

I can see, though, that many businesses would have been able to dispense with them some while back.

P.S. HMRC are quite keen to still issue cheques for tax refunds, probably because they can save money by not depositing sums in bank accounts by transfer but spinning out the issue of cheques, some of which will never get banked. My evidence for this comes in the form of a letter I received from them today concerning a significant refund they owe me. I had three weeks from the supposed date of issue of the letter to apply online for it to go directly into my bank account, failing which I must wait a minimum of a further six weeks to receive a cheque. The three weeks expires next Monday and in return for my compliance I'm obliged to conduct all future communications with HMRC online, which I'm not prepared to do.

Actually, your final paragraph shows that HMRC are very keen to do away with cheques, hence the fact that you get your money quicker if you agree to switch to online communication as any future refunds will also be done by bank transfer. (I'm not sure why anyone who uses the internet wouldn't do so).

 

[Halwynd]

A bit different with me -- I don't find cheques particularly convenient in practical terms; just -- as per my OP -- I enjoy still using them in the (becoming rarer) circumstances when I can: for the perverse old-fashionedness of it; plus, I'm a technophobe, not happy with most on-line money doings (use cash as far as possible, for both reasons as given).

With the interestingly different findings-and-citings to which this thread has given rise: I went back to my Lloyds branch today, and -- emphasising that it was just "curiosity" -- asked the guy at the "enquiries and complicated stuff" desk about this matter. He consulted relevant sources; and told me that Lloyds' policy is: in "personal" cheque situations (as mine is), there is no charge for one's stopping a cheque. If it's a "business" matter, there's a £10 charge. I recounted to him, my experience of a few days ago (told that it would cost me £10): he opined that -- with cheque use having become basically fairly rare, and with that progressively becoming more so -- not all bank staff are as au fait with the rules concerning cheques, as they might be; this likely applying to his young lady colleague who told me the other day, that I'd have to pay £10.

Glad you managed to confirm matters to your satisfaction.

 

[Busaholic]

Actually, your final paragraph shows that HMRC are very keen to do away with cheques, hence the fact that you get your money quicker if you agree to switch to online communication as any future refunds will also be done by bank transfer. (I'm not sure why anyone who uses the internet wouldn't do so).

I have a different reading of the situation - I believe 'government' as a whole would oppose their inability to issue cheques, though accepting them from their citizens might be another matter!

On your second point, maybe, just maybe, you'd change your mind if, like me, you'd received two days later a letter from the Trustees of my late wife's pension fund (from whom I receive a widower's monthly pension) notification that all details held on me had been hacked in the March 2023 attack on the outsourcing C(r)apita firm. This was the very first intimation that this attack almost four months ago had affected this particular small (by BBC or M&S pension standards) scheme. I believe an attempt to corrupt my computer was made just before Easter, a day before the Sunday Times exposed the story of the attack on many pension funds and the complacent attitude of Capita in trying to cover it up. It was my natural scepticism that stopped me from clicking on a link which to all intents and purposes seemed to come from Capita. With me and computers now ''if in any doubt, don't click' is my motto, even if it does mean a payment I'm owed gets delayed.

 

[simonw]

I have a different reading of the situation - I believe 'government' as a whole would oppose their inability to issue cheques, though accepting them from their citizens might be another matter!

On your second point, maybe, just maybe, you'd change your mind if, like me, you'd received two days later a letter from the Trustees of my late wife's pension fund (from whom I receive a widower's monthly pension) notification that all details held on me had been hacked in the March 2023 attack on the outsourcing C(r)apita firm. This was the very first intimation that this attack almost four months ago had affected this particular small (by BBC or M&S pension standards) scheme. I believe an attempt to corrupt my computer was made just before Easter, a day before the Sunday Times exposed the story of the attack on many pension funds and the complacent attitude of Capita in trying to cover it up. It was my natural scepticism that stopped me from clicking on a link which to all intents and purposes seemed to come from Capita. With me and computers now ''if in any doubt, don't click' is my motto, even if it does mean a payment I'm owed gets delayed.

I'm not sure how the government incentivising you to be paid online is evidence of them wanting to continue to use cheques.

HMRC never send you a message that says click here to log in to your account.

 

[Busaholic]

I'm not sure how the government incentivising you to be paid online is evidence of them wanting to continue to use cheques.

HMRC never send you a message that says click here to log in to your account.

I'm not linking the two, unlike you. I'm merely suggesting they are Janus-like in wanting different outcomes for their own bureaucracy as against the wants and needs of the taxpayer, it being to their financial benefit to continue the option of cheque issue. It aids their obfuscatory tactics sometimes.

 

[simonw]

I'm not linking the two, unlike you. I'm merely suggesting they are Janus-like in wanting different outcomes for their own bureaucracy as against the wants and needs of the taxpayer, it being to their financial benefit to continue the option of cheque issue. It aids their obfuscatory tactics sometimes.

Sorry, you have completely lost me. Sounds like tinfoil hat territory.

 

[Egg Centric]

A bit different with me -- I don't find cheques particularly convenient in practical terms; just -- as per my OP -- I enjoy still using them in the (becoming rarer) circumstances when I can: for the perverse old-fashionedness of it

I feel you, this is the only reason I could imagine using them (although I don't think I have a chequebook).

Ever used postal orders? There's a blast from the past but they're still doable.

 

[Gloster]

I feel you, this is the only reason I could imagine using them (although I don't think I have a chequebook).

Ever used postal orders? There's a blast from the past but they're still doable.

Postal orders cost a fee on top of their value. This starts at 50p and goes up to £12.50, but the Post Office’s site has got the figures wrong so you can’t work out most of the intermediate stages.

 

[Calthrop]

I feel you, this is the only reason I could imagine using them (although I don't think I have a chequebook).

Ever used postal orders? There's a blast from the past but they're still doable.

Postal orders cost a fee on top of their value. This starts at 50p and goes up to £12.50, but the Post Office’s site has got the figures wrong so you can’t work out most of the intermediate stages.

@Egg Centric : momentarily, you tempted me; but in the light of @Gloster's post -- there's such a thing as too high a price to be paid (both literally and metaphorically) for being a "dinosaur" for the fun of it .

 

[Busaholic]

Sorry, you have completely lost me. Sounds like tinfoil hat territory.

I'm sorry if your reading of the situation doesn't accord with mine, but I do resent being accused of being paranoid, in effect, or advancing conspiracy theories. Like I am sure many on this forum I have spent the best part of three years sedulously avoiding that section of it devoted to espousing opinions/thoughts/insights/flights of fancy on a certain, undoubtedly very important topic that has attracted so much attention. Some of the sparing amount I read would certainly qualify for the tinfoil hat category imo. I will now leave this thread continuing to believe cheques will be around long after bank branches have ceased to decorate our towns, the latter fact of course being very much welcomed by the 'make everything go online' brigade.

 

[Egg Centric]

but the Post Office’s site has got the figures wrong so you can’t work out most of the intermediate stages.

Surprising. Perhaps they feed them directly from Horizon...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2023 ==

@Egg Centric : momentarily, you tempted me; but in the light of @Gloster's post -- there's such a thing as too high a price to be paid (both literally and metaphorically) for being a "dinosaur" for the fun of it .

You can't take it with you