Cheque Guarantee Cards and Loan Sharks

If I needed to borrow a small amount of money and I had a cheque book and a cheque guarantee card, I could go to a cheque cashing shop and get a loan to the extent of the guarantee which can be up to £250. The cheque cashing shop insists that I don't put a date on my cheque and they will insert a date before they present the cheque to my bank. If I am unable to repay the loan after, say, the agreed period, the cheque cashing shop will extend the loan at a suitable usurious rate of interest. The cheque can, in practice, be presented many months after receipt by the cheque cashing shop.

This has happened to a friend of mine and she currently owes the cheque cashing service £250 plus interest plus interest on interest.

She intends to pull the plug on the transaction and let the cheque cashing service sue for their money but in the words of Lord Dunpark, that eminent Scottish judge, "they cannot get blood from a stone".

What she doesn't want to happen is that the guarantee kicks in and she goes overdrawn and the meagre state benefits paid into her account are used up for the benefit of the bank.

She cites the APACS UK Domestic Cheque Guarantee Card Scheme.

formatting link

Under the rules (Rule 2) the cheque must be dated on the actual date of issue and under Rule 6c the cheque must be presented within 3 days of issue else the guarantee is null and void.

If she can show evidence as to when the cheque was issued in the first place, is the guarantee worthless and is her bank likely to acknowledge this?

I'm not suggesting my friend acted with moral rectitude but I'm interested in only the legal position. Cheque cashing services may have to rethink their practices.

Reply to
Alasdair
Loading thread data ...

So it would seem.

That depends on how "issued" is defined. It could be argued that by giving them an undated cheque, she has not actually issued it yet, but has authorised them to issue the cheque on her behalf at a future date.

On the other hand, this argument seems to be defeated by Rule 6 (which is directed specifically at encashment service providers) because it says the cheque must be presented within 3 days of when they *received* it. Even if they could argue that "issue" was delayed, they would still have received it well before it was issued. Again there is a grey area because Rule 6 applies "where a guarantee is used to support an encashment service". Strictly, in your scenario, your friend availed herself of a loan service, not an encashment service, and so it could be argued that rule 6 does not apply.

This seems to be a pretty stupid way of borrowing a small amount of money. You mention that these shops apply usurious rates of interest. Surely her bank's overdraft rates are less usurious than the shop's, so why not just get the money from the bank? -- Or was there never any intention to pay it back? :-)

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

Seems to me that you would be in breach of contract with the bank for entering into the arrangement. I would expect them to cancel the guarantee card, and they might well terminate your account.

You would still owe the cheque cashing shop and they would either continue to compound the interest, or would start the process which would eventually send in the bailiffs. If as a result, they ceased to be able to pay in cheques to the bank, they might be even more intent on

making an example of you (unless the problem was a rogue local manager.

Issuing a cheque using the card, under the belief that the guarantee was

void might be considered fraud.

Reply to
David Woolley

Why? Do the terms generally forbid the giving of undated cheques?

Indeed they might. They probably have the right to do so even in the absence of breach.

Either the guarantee will be honoured or it will not. If not, she will indeed still owe the shop at least what she borrowed plus reasonable interest (she might not owe unreasonable interest if usurious). But if the guarantee is honoured, her debt will be to the bank, and only to the bank unless the debt to the shop exceeds the value of the cheque.

Nah. Fraud would be taking the loan with the intention of not repaying it. The method by which the non-repayment is to be achieved is neither here nor there. The intention not to repay might in any case not have existed at the outset, but arisen later. It might then not be fraud if there are circumstances at play beyond the borrower's control.

If she is unwilling to repay (for whatever reason, such as being unable), she would do well to consider which of the loan shark and the bank would make the more civilised creditor. :-)

It is not clear whether the bank has discretion to honour the guarantee even in the event of a technical irregularity with the date. It may not be up to the customer. She could try putting a stop on the cheque, ahile admitting that a guarantee card was involved but pointing out hat the provisos were not observed, and see what they say, but the bank will not take kindly to being used as an unwitting accomplice to defrauding the shop.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

I think you are talking about the difference between what is legal what is not proveably illegal. It was already stated that guaranteed cheques shouldn't be undated. If someone provides both an undated cheque, and a guarantee card, it seems to me that they intend to breach that condition.

The scenario I envisaged was that they went out of their way to record the breach of the guarantee rules, to give them the option of voiding the cheque. Proving that beyond reasonable doubt might be difficult, but the bare facts might blight future credit checks.

My thought, although this is presumably a licensed company, not someone on the doorstep, or in the pub.

Normally they would have discretion to honour it as though it weren't guaranteed and generally businesses always draft contracts to give themselves discretion, but absolutely bind the consumer.

My guess is it would depend on whether they thought that they would get their money back, with profit, eventually. If they didn't honour it, in those circumstances, I would think it very likely they would close the account, noting the breach in their credit history.

>
Reply to
David Woolley

I don't think that was stated, at least not in the sense that the bank would require its customer to date the cheque. The guarantee is a benefit to the payee, not to the drawer (except indirectly where a payee will not accept payment by unguaranteed cheque), and that benefit is conditional upon a number of technicalities being observed, one of which being that the cheque should be dated when issued.

Thus a payee wishing to enjoy the benefit of the guarantee has the right to insist that the drawer date the cheque properly. But in this special situation the loan shop (the real villain of this piece) is specifically insisting that the drawer *not* date the cheque, so that the shop can pretend to the bank that the cheque was issued much later than in fact it was. Remember that the purpose of the cheque here is to serve as security for a cash loan, and the expectation is that the loan will be repaid in cash, and the cheque will then be returned to the borrower and torn up. The shop only ever intends to present the cheque to the borrower's bank in the event that she fails to repay the loan when due. This would usually be weeks later.

Not at all. If the drawer *were* to date the cheque properly, the shop would be unable to store it for delayed presentation, since this would also void the guarantee.

By requiring the date to be left blank, the shop is deliberately placing itself at risk of the guarantee being voided, and so it should not be surprised at all to find a customer willing to put this to the test.

There is a legal question over the meaning of "issued". When is a cheque issued? I'd expect the answer to be when it is completed by the drawer. In the normal case, a payee will receive a cheque only after it has been issued. What the shop wants to achieve here, is to be able to claim that it received it before it was issued, i.e. it needs to argue that it can act as proxy for the drawer to finish or complete the issuing process by filling in the date. It needs to be authorised by the drawer to do this. I dare say this setup is possible in law, but it is undoubtedly contrary at least to the spirit of the rules of the guarantee.

Fair enough, but the background suggests that circumstances are such that -but for the guarantee- the bank would probably have exercised the discretion to bounce the cheque, since -reading between the lines- not doing so would make the account overdrawn, if it isn't already.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

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.