Refused Check

As the OP pointed out, account holders have no say in the bank's method of payment and really could care less. As it's in the bank's best interests to pay using the most efficient means possible, you can be sure they would have if it were possible. And while paper checks may be eliminated in your country, in the US they still serve a small, but useful purpose. Given that Check21 and other banking regulations permits truncation at point of deposit, the check is only paper between the bank's printer and the receipient. Hardly a reason to get your knickers in a twist.

Reply to
Arthur Conan Doyle
Loading thread data ...

I did ask my bank and they said some merchant payees cannot (or will not) accept electronic checks generated by the banks Billpay system. If the merchant is not on the list of payees accepting electronic checks, a paper check is issued.

Reply to
Arnie Goetchius

I suspect that is true for my bank also.

Reply to
Juan Wei

Of course. As far as I know, the same is true of all banks. Using Quicken you can also send payments to individuals and very small companies, and almost always, individuals and very small companies don't accept EFTs, so the bank will send a check.

But as I understood the question, it wasn't about the recipient of the payment, it was about the sending bank, and why *some* banks apparently use EFTs for nobody, and always sends checks.

Reply to
Ken Blake, MVP

Ken Blake, MVP has written on 2/25/2014 6:27 PM:

??? My bank does NOT always send a check! It sends checks apparently when it knows that the recipient's bank does not accept EFTs.

Reply to
Juan Wei

I didn't see that in the original post - I thought the question was how to treat a voided payment that happened to be by paper check.

But even if the financial institution did always pay by paper check, why does anyone care? The check goes electronic as soon as it is presented for payment. In many cases, just a photo of the check is sufficient to deposit. So, the only time the paper check exists is between the bank's check printer and the payee. I don't care if the bank spends money on postage, and most reasonable banks do not withdraw funds until the check is actually presented, so the fact the bank mails the check out 3 or 4 days early is of no consequence to me.

If sending funds completely electronically is really that important, use one of the new funds transfer companies or Paypal.

Reply to
Arthur Conan Doyle

Thanks for that info, Arnie. Up here in Canada, merchants are either ON or not ON the chartered bank's electronic payment system. Paper is only an option for an individual's choice of payment means. Admittedly, I send my young relatives paper checks for their b-days and Christmas because, to do this electronically by e-pay from my bank account via e-mail would cost me $1.50 a transaction. Doing it via check, even with postage, is marginally cheaper even with the newly announced postage rates in Canada. As of March 31, a first-class letter in Canada, weighing under 30 grams, will cost $1.00 to send, unless one buys stamps at the bulk rate of 85 cents each.

Reply to
Sharxster

Obviously, up here in Canada with our just having a handful of huge banks, the situation differs. All banks here are on the INTERAC system (Google it). Ditto for the large trust companies. The financial system is so heavily regulated here...in this case, a GOOD thing, that check use by almost anyone is becoming a rarity.

If paper was used, I'd have to worry about it being "lost", at some point along the way. With electronic transmissions, controls are a lot stronger.

Reply to
Sharxster

Yes, perhaps, but he didn't. We are aware of your personal concern, others do not share it. No offense, but why do you continue to harp on this and waste 'bandwidth' ???

Reply to
Andrew

One other thing that the CTRL V does as well is to change the CLEARED column to a small 'c' indicating that entry is cleared pending the next reconciliation (at which time Q will change the entry to a capital 'R').

As long as you're doing this manually, do that as well (change to a 'c').

Reply to
Andrew

Sorry, but I wasn't referring to you, and looking back I see that it wasn't the original question I was referring to. It was Sharxter, who said "Most of this bandwidth would not have been wasted if the OP had simply used a bank that used ELECTRONIC transmissions, rather than archaic, 19th century paper checks."

Reply to
Ken Blake, MVP

Some payees do not accept electronic payments of any sort. My local water utility at one house still won't do automatic payments by any means including withdrawal from a FI account, much less credit or debit cards. And I can't take my business elsewhere, unless I want to put in a cistern. :)

Reply to
Green Eggs

Right, some payees don't accept electronic payments. But also note that not all payees have to be companies. For example, I've used Quicken's automatic payment capability to send cash gifts to family members.

Reply to
Ken Blake, MVP

Understood. But what rock are they living under...the water utility. Is it privately owned? Municipal? Time to put pressure on their owners...letters to the local papers, media, etc..

Reply to
Sharxster

Ken, does that method of sending cash to family members cost you OR them anything? UP here in Canada, "e-transfers", which my bank, CIBC, will do (all that is required are the sender and receiver having an e-mail address and a bank account--no divulging of account numbers is required) costs the SENDER $1.50, no matter how much of a "VIP" one is on account of the size of one's bank accounts. So, since I will not send cash through the mail, I have to mail them an, UGH, check. Still cheaper, though, than the $1.50. Money orders up here, at the P.O. OR at the bank, are at least $5.00.

David

Reply to
Sharxster

Nope, it costs neither of us anything,

Ugh! That's a lot!

Reply to
Ken Blake, MVP

Yes, indeed. However, effective March 31, individual bought stamps for a first-class letter will cost ONE DOLLAR!!, unless you buy them in bulk OR use a postage meter--in that case they will ONLY cost 85 cents Canadian. I stocked up on stamps prior to this policy being announced, fortunately, with those non-denominated first-class stamps which will still be accepted, as is, after March 31. They cost 63 cents. You guys pay less, no doubt, for letters.

Reply to
Sharxster

I pay next to nothing. I very rarely mail a letter these days. My "letters" go by e-mail, not by USPS, and my bill payments are all electronic. I might use half a dozen or so stamps a year. It's been so long since I last bought any that I can't even remember what I paid for them.

If I had my way, the Post Office would vanish. They are no longer needed, for any of the three types of mail:

  1. Letters (Use e-mail instead)
  2. Packages (Use UPS, FedEx, etc.)
  3. Junk Mail (No substitute needed; stop it entirely)
Reply to
Ken Blake, MVP

Sadly municipal, for two adjacent cities. They are about 50 years behind the times and don't want to change. I have been nagging them for 12 years to at least do electronic billing because the amount varies each month. They won't send out e-bills and won't do ANY form of automatic payments. They do not have any e-payment system. So, I have to wait for the mailed paper bill then have my bank send them a check (no cost to me other than needless steps). I use WF banking through Quicken (also no charge to me).

Reply to
Green Eggs

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.