cheque 'guarantee'?

I am the 'OP'

The person did not use more than one cheque to settle a debt greater than the value of the guarantee card. He actually bought a 160 item with the cheque in question anf 60 Cash.

I have reported the matter to the police and following what I have read here I am going to send a recorded delivery letter to his bank requesting payment and also stating that I will be reporting the matter to the banking ombudsman if i don't receive payment and if i still dont get paid i will invest 30 in a MCOL case against them.

i will give you some feedback!

thanks all,

Mike

Oh my god, I'm sure my mum used to bank with them, or maybe my Auntie.

The name definatley springs up a childhood memory.

Along with Martins Bank, British Linen Bank, National Provincial Bank, Glyn Mills et al.

So, seeing a cheque for exactly the limit, the bank concluded that this cheque was in part payment of a larger sum, and not in accordance with the rules.

They arrived at the correct conclusion, even though they didn't have absolute proof.

They might attempt to wheedle out of it, but when push comes to shove, if you can show that you correctly accepted a guaranteed cheque, they will eventually pay it.

Which is proof that banks are not to be trusted.

In some cases they simply don't pay, when they are clearly in the wrong for that decision.

(presumably).

Pardon?

They correctly worked out that you were attempting to break the rules of the scheme, and that is proof that *they* are not to be trusted????

Show me a single case where a bank has refused to pay a properly guaranteed cheque and has had its refusal upheld by a court.

As to :

WHY NOT????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (LET THE PUBLIC SEE WHAT IS GOING ON?)

Consider the utterly indefinable control of exposure of judicial activities:

NO CAMERAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO RECORDINGS!!!!!!!!!!

WHY, IF everything is within the law and as the law provides?

Why the protection racket?

WHO wont to protect who from exposure?

----------- WHY generate, with intent, unnecessary volumes of paperwork (third parties benefiting for transcripts "to be approved by the directors of all fraud and corruption at and through the courts) IN THIS DAY AND AGE of ELECTRONIC wonders? WHY NOT TRUE uncut and UNEDITED VIDEO RECORDINGS for ALL Court hearings and proceedings in our Courts??? ______

"Roger J. P. Jones" wrote

Well, not actually to stop payment Roger, but when you make a purchase using your card & the price of an item exceeds 100, then the CC issuer is jointly liable with the retailer/supplier for the satisfactory performance of the Contract. So if you bought an item costing more than 100 with your CC (furniture for example) & for whatever reason they failed to supply it, you would be entitled to a full refund from the CC issuer without you needing to sue the supplier for breach of Contract. For this reason alone it's well worth using a CC for such purchases.

Palindr?me's provided a good list, I'd just add one other thing. In order to avoid paying Interest on the balance shown on the CC Statement, you should make the payment (even if it's cash), at least 5 days before the due date shown on the Statement.

Joe Lee

In message , Joe Lee writes

Thanks Mate.

PS

Who are this uk.finance lot?

PPS

Your:

Says it all.

Roger

What they "worked out" is totally irrelevant. Rules of this nature are either black or white and should not be applied on the basis of assumption when there are grey areas.

The bank received one, single, correctly presented, guaranteed cheque and bounced it. They were wrong to do so.

Of course, any ordinary jo is going to pitch his money and legal team against a high street bank every time, not.

Look, I know it happens.. If you don't want to believe me, fine, live in your own little bubble for all I care.

End of.

I detect a distinct lack of marbles in this vicinity. Or is it drugs?

THE DRUGS!! - THE DRUGS - THE DRUGS IT WAS!!

NOT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CLEAR - CONCISE - BRIEF - TO THE POINT.

Well said young Sir.

In message , Mike writes

Not so. It was obvious to them that it was part of a larger transaction, they knew you were trying it on, but because they had not truth they tried it on as well and waited to see what would happen. They may have seen previous cheques to the IR, and what was the point of post dating th other cheque, post dating has no effect on a guaranteed cheque.

I have bounced cheques that I have suspected were part of larger transactions many times.

Nope.

Agreed, but the bank is entitled to enquire if it has reasonable grounds for suspicion.

No, if their suspicion was confirmed. Yes, otherwise.

guaranteed cheque

guaranteed

There is no need: there is the FOS.

I believe you. Just as murder is against the law, but still happens, banks break contracts.

That's probably about right.

Hmmm.. There were no previous cheques to arouse their suspicions and post dated work fine unless someone tells them. Who, in thses circs would have done that? Anyway, the cheque that was presented was written the day before.

It is in the context of.. " A Cheque Guarantee Card is a guarantee from the bank that, provided the cheque has been accepted in accordance with the conditions of that card, the cheque will be honoured. "

No enquiries were made, they simply bounced it. I recall both the IR rep and I being quite shocked.

Their suspicion was never *confirmed*.

Which is what I said.

How can you possibly know that? Whether it was obvious to *you* or not isn't the point. They had, in their own mind, a good reason for stopping the cheque. What do you think that was? And why that cheque, of the thousands that pass through their hands every day?

Brian

I would say that any bank which tries to put in and enforce a condition that a cheque must not be part payment for a larger amount is acting unreasonably and therefore such condition is in law voidable. At best they could impose that condition in situations where *additional guaranteed cheques* are being used to make up the larger amount. In other words, if you bought something for £250 and paid for it with three guaranteed cheques, two for £100 and one for £50, that would be OK to disallow, but if you bought something for £250 and paid £150 cash and one cheque for £100, that should be perfectly OK. There is no good reason to bounce cheques where at most one guaranteed cheque is involved in any one transaction.

Oh, and when you buy two items at Harrod's and they come to £130, but the two items are both under £100, then you could have them put through the till as two distinct transactions, and use one guaranteed cheque for each transaction. Would the banks deem that to be OK or would they consider it "trying to get around their rules"?

In the regrettably short period that Eurocheques have been with us, I note that their T&Cs explicitly permitted the use of multiple cheques, each up to the Eurocheque card guarantee limit, to fund larger purchases. The bank's protection here lay, presumably, in limiting the number of cheques it would issue to a customer. In principle, I see no good reason why it shouldn't be the same for ordinary cheques, particularly these days where personal cheques are used less frequently than they used to be, so it seems not too much of an imposition to limit the number of cheques issued, which are capable of being guaranteed.