Credit Cards/Chip and Pin/ATM withdrawls

In message , Peter Hucker writes

Sounds like an HBOS, try RBS.

"john boyle" wrote

Aren't Tesco CC's managed by RBS? Sainsbury CC's are managed by HBoS...

But it isn't. Stopping cheques is something which is done routinely. Even having insufficient funds in an account when a cheque is presented is not an offence, it's merely an "oops sorry" kind of thing.

In article , Alex writes

very big snip.

Thank you for all that, most informative!

At 17:00:48 on 29/12/2005, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:

So is speeding. Are you saying speeding is not an offence in the UK?

I believe that writing a cheque which you have no intention of honouring is an offence of fraud or theft. I also believe you can then successfully sue just on the cheque itself.

No. I'm saying if stopping cheques were a criminal offence, banks wouldn't let you do it, since they could be co-liable as conspirators.

Quite so. But simply dishonouring a cheque isn't. At the time of writing you could have had every intention of honouring it, and you could later have changed your mind (such as if the cooker you had just bought with it doesn't work).

Indeed, but that's a civil matter, not a crime.

At 17:01:05 on 29/12/2005, Peter Hucker delighted uk.finance by announcing:

Well of course they do! Until they have a chip reader they can't read (or write to) chips. Were they Link machines?

I assumed this was done a while back and we were just aiting for small shops (like er.... B&Q) to catch up.

I thought every ATM was a link. I've never noticed an ATM that does not say Link. It took my Barclaycard (without pin functions), so I assume it's not ONLY RBOS/HBOS that it takes.

At 18:19:03 on 29/12/2005, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:

I believe most banks will only stop cheques that have been reported lost or stolen. You can't just ask your bank to stop a cheque because you don't feel like paying any more.

I'm not sure that's a valid reason for stopping a cheque.

Quite so. But the prior action may well be a crime.

In message , Alex writes

Yes you can. However, the reason for stopping the cheque may effect whether the bank charges you for it or not.

You do not need to declare any reason to the drawee when countermanding a cheque you have issued.

In message , Tim writes

I think you are right about Tesco,. I have no idea about sainsbury's.

The old 'clearing' banks will generally all handle each others cards. The old building societies etc., and the Scottish banks without a UK network werent so co-operative. So RBS is now regarded as an old style UK Clearing Bank but HBOS (which is the real name for Halifax), may still be out on a limb, but I am not sure.

In message , Peter Hucker writes

No, primary 'link' machines say ' 'link' boldly! But there are others that arent link machines that will take link so the word link is smaller. (:0))

At 20:31:38 on 29/12/2005, john boyle delighted uk.finance by announcing:

But they can then immediately sue you, and win, surely?

I didn't realise it was a mag stripe & PIN.

I am VERY surprised to hear you say it was only for debit cards, because for some time, it was quite difficult to persuade checkout operators in some French supermarkets to accept our cards that didn't use PINs - you often had to get the supervisor in to authorise it.

Which would imply from what you say that the French don't use Credit cards much, but mainly use debit cards. Do you know if that is true?

I didn't realise that, not having tried to use a French petrol pump since having a C&P card.

But their shops (IME) are mostly using the new system, and I believe that they have a similar "cut off" date from when everything is

That depends on whether they have supplied the service for goods that the cheque was supposed to pay for.

If you have an enforceable debt, and stop the cheque you supposedly paid it with, then yes, they could sue you for it and win.

a few cards in my trouser pocket. It don't matter now that I use the pin though :-) Occasionally I go to B&Q, I just grumble under my breath and produce another card with some signature left on it. They have a BRAND NEW STORE in Livingston, yet they are not using pin?!?!?

Their whole organisation is not yet using it.

I don't know if they will be by the cut off date in February. But they will become liable for fraud involving signatures with C&P card from then on, so I expect they will do so PDQ.

My spell checker. That originally said 'Merkans, and I clicked on "OK" too quickly.

Not necessarily without disproportionate effort though.

In message , Alex writes

Hmm, let me think for a bit

I will go back a bit if I may.

S 75 (2) of the Bills of Exchange act makes it quite clear and explicit that the countermanding payment is a legitimate action with which a drawee is obliged to comply. A cheque is a contractual relationship between the drawee and the drawer notwithstanding the absence of the drawee's signature. A countermand authority revokes the banker's authority to pay in the same way as if the drawer was deceased by the time the cheque was presented.

In the days prior to the Cheques Act 1992, title to cheques (and bills of exchange which remained as it was) could be passed from holder to holder and each holder, subject to certain conditions, could attain the status of 'holder in due course' which is the paramount title to a cheque. This was because unrestricted endorsed cheques are negotiable instruments and transferable. A cheque that has been passed from hand to hand could have many parties and a holder had a right of action against any other prior holder party to the cheque in the event of default. All that was needed was the cheque. This is drawn from S29 (3) of the BoEA which says "a holder (whether for value or not) who derives his title to a bill through a holder in due course, and who is not himself a party to any fraud or illegality affecting it, has all the rights of that holder in due course as regards the acceptor and parties to the bill prior to that holder." This means that subsequent holder of a cheque can sue all the previous holders and parties.

This ability has lead many to believe that *payee* of a cheque only needs a defaulted cheque in order to have a cast iron case to win at court. I do not believe this to be the case but am not yet sure why.

A subsequent holder of an uncrossed or pre 1992 cheque may have such a right, but not a payee of a post 1992 cheque.

The 1992 Cheques Act stopped a cheque crossed as 'a/c payee only' becoming transferable and restricted the right of action to the original parties to the cheque and thereby removed the protection previously afforded to a collecting bank by s82 of the Bills of Exchange Act.

There seems to be a general misunderstanding about the status of cheques in regard to the enforcement of debts and I have been thinking about what has been posted in these groups for some time.

"The Law Relating to Banking" Reeday TG 1972 (that B******* of a chief examiner!!) says "The rights of a holder in due course are that he can sue in his own name all or any of the other parties to the bill or note, free from any defences, whether due to defect of title or to mere personal reasons, available to prior parties amongst themselves" He then goes on to explain that this only applies because the Bill of Exchange is negotiable.

I am thinking that a post 1992 Cheque bearing a restrictive crossing is not negotiable in so far as a holder can not develop the status of a holder in due course. If this is so, then the unfettered right of action on a post 1992 cheque which bears a restrictive crossing does not apply.

But please let me think about it for a bit longer.