Disappearing cheques.

In message , moominpapa writes

Regarding the first case, it is too early days to start blaming or complaining to anyone until the facts are know. The only way this can be determined is to see the paid cheque and it is perfectly correct for the drawee only to accept instructions from the drawer. It isn't really a Data Protection problem just normal 'customer confidentiality'. Sight of the actual paid cheque should reveal what happened to it because it will bear imprints of the bank who collected the cheque and should also have details of the account into which it was actually paid on the rear. When your partner sent the cheque by post did they also send a credit slip and write the account number on the back?

Only when all this is found out will it be possible to determine who is responsible. It is unlikely to be the drawee who is at fault, more likely it will be the collecting bank's (i.e. Cahoot) fault or your partner's for not making it clear which account the cheque was supposed to be credited to.

Regarding the insurance case, you have given insufficient detail to comment except to say that resorting to a legal remedy seems premature when all that was needed was sight of the paid cheque.

Another reason to keep my RBS account open Jackie

True, but blame can be laid the doors of those who seek to obstruct the process of finding out what the facts are.

Agreed. The first step is to contact the drawer, and if the drawer refuses to co-operate, the drawer is the person against whom proceedings would have to be brought for non-payment of a debt. The drawer would then be forced to prove that he had in fact paid, by obtaining this proof from or through the drawee (his bank).

I think there must be limits to confidentiality, though, since if the drawer is not well enough known to the payee, it should be possible to contact the drawer via the drawee. The drawee is not obliged to reveal the drawer's address, but ought to be obliged to pass on a request for help or, if necessary, it ought to possible to serve proceedings against the drawer care of the drawee. This should also be possible in the case of bounced cheques.

Agreed. But surely the collecting bank, as custodian of the cheque, is responsible for its safety and for it not going astray. They ought to be able to find it and make proper recompense if they can't. They did give a recipt for it, after all.

Indeed. Again it is not either bank who would be sued, but the drawer in the first instance, i.e. in this case the insurance company, who will have agreed to a payout and then -in effect- failed to make it because they sent a cheque which -for whatever reason- didn't work.

That wasnt obstruction, they were merely saying what was not possible.

It is.

It isnt 'obliged' to but banks regularly do (real banks that is)

Ohh,, no. No bank would accept that responsibility without a hefty fee from the drawee.

I agree that given the amount and the approximate date they should be able to find it in their records somwhwre, or at leats a list of 'possibles'.

Did they? When?

From whom? :-)

When they stamped the pay-in slip counterfoil. Generally-speaking, that is. I guess in this specific example, if cheque and pay-in slip were mailed, this doesn't apply.