How long is a UK Cheque 'valid'?

6 months from date on the check.

Conventionally, six months. Some cheques have earlier expiries explicitly written on them.

You've probably done the right thing. If they're honouring cheques that far out of date, you've good reason to complain.

Jon

Six months, but the bank usually doesn't check the date, so it will go through anyway.

The recipient could still sue you for the money, and the cheque is all the evidence they need.

on what grounds.

If he still owed the money he has no basis for a complaint.

tim

The drawer has had the use of the money interest free in excess of the normal 6 month maximum, so have technically benefitted from the banks error.

I thought that technically the cheque is valid forever, but the banks will ask for old cheque to be checked with the drawer just in case it may have been presumed lost without being notified, and the original debt been extinguished by other means.

There you go. It *is* valid forever, since if it were to have become invalid, you would no longer be able to sue on it.

The cheques were presents - not a 'debt' as such. I have had the situation in the past where such cheques were presented and the recipient's bank refused them .....but not this year, the same person put a cheque through in November 2004 when it was 11 months old and another has gone through dated January 2005 (will go through when banks open), 13 months old.

I cannot find anything in my terms and conditions but still believe that the cheque expires after 6 months.....I could be wrong.

I have the money to cover the funds and I have no problem with the recipient receiving the monies.

What if I hadn't the funds to cover the cheques?

Was it my (the drawer) responsibility to stop the cheque after a period of time or would the bank have performed a check due to lack of funds and stopped the cheque for me?

It's a point of principle....I'll follow this one with my bank but it would have been 'nice' to have been able to referred to a 'rule'. Having been with my bank for around about 30 years, you would think that I would know the answer to something like this - it scares me that I don't and I cannot readily locate the answer.

It's all down to trust, I guess?

On the grounds that he has a reasonable expectation that he shouldn't expect his account to be unexpectedly debited by cheques older than the usual expiry period.

After all, if you normally keep an account balance around 500 pounds (say), but wrote a cheque for 700, it would be reasonable to keep cash in the account for six months to cover the cheque, but not thereafter.

The OP may still owe the amount in question, but it's up to the person to whom the cheque was issued to return the outdated cheque and request that a new one be written. That's the usual procedure.

Jon

Can the OP tell us if the cheques were issued in conjunction with a Cheque Guarantee Card? If so, the 6 month rules does not apply.

The original cheques were sent through the post as gifts. No cheque guarantee card used.

Being a gift, I very much doubt it!

In message , NewsGroupQuestion writes

Fair enough. These days, banks dont examine cheques below a set amount, which I understand is some thousands of £s, in fact most cheques dont even get sent to the drawee.

In this case I think it would be difficult for you to have any claim against the bank if your position has not changed and you have not suffered loss.

In message , Adrian Boliston writes

That info had not been revealed when I wrote my post.

Why should it make any difference whether it was a gift or settlement of a debt? I was under the impression that the ability to "sue on a cheque" was an additional option to suing for non-payment of a debt, and therefore the pre-existence of a debt is not a condition the absence of which would bar suing on the cheque, except where it can be shown that the original debt has been settled by other means and therefore that payee and drawer have agreed that the cheque should be invalidated.

Also, a cheque is not of any value in itself, but it is an instruction by the drawer to the drawee to transfer value to the payee or order. So a cheque cannot itself be a gift. The gift is the value in question. A bona fide gift is conveyed by the donor saying to the donee "I am giving you £1000 for your birthday, and here's the cheque". The donee thanks the donor profusely, and takes the cheque, and when it's presented it bounces because the drawer has either countermanded it or arranged for insufficient funds to be in the account. I think the donee *should* be able in such circumstances to sue on the cheque, even though there was no a priori debt involved. I'd have thought a bona finde gift, once made, cannot be reversed, and therefore the countermanding is equivalent to theft, exactly as though the donor had handed over a parcel of cash, plied the donee with drink, and filched it from under his pillow while he was sleeping it off.

Have you looked on your bank's web site?

I see that Coutts bank says - inter alia:

10.2 If a cheque is more that six months old, it is regarded as ?out of date? and we may refuse to pay it.

The implication of the word 'may' suggests that as far as Coutts are concerned, a cheque is good for value for ever.

That's how I've always understood the situation. The 6 month 'rule' is I believe merely an administration convenience for the bank, and probably relates to the time decades ago when individual cheques were routinely examined.

Most businesses I know would put a stop on cheques more than 6 months old, and then seek to clear the debt with a replacement cheque. That's a pragmatic thing for them to do, since the creditor may no longer be in business, and depending on the value of the cheque, it would be unreasonable for cashflow control to keep the funds available in a current account which doesn't usually earn interest.

So IMO the answer is Yes, it is your responsibility to stop the cheque and start again.

Rgds

__ Richard Buttrey Grappenhall, Cheshire, UK __________________________

In message , Ronald Raygun writes

Because the word 'gift' implies that the cheque is unlikely to have been drawn in accordance with the rules of the cheque card guarantee scheme, i.,e. The payee did not see the cheque being signed or write the cheque card number on the back.

You introduced the guarantee card on the sly. Surely the card can only enhance how "good" a cheque is, not restrict it. In any case, the OP's cheques were not guaranteed.

You can sue on an unguaranteed cheque, no?

In message , Ronald Raygun writes

No I didnt. Go back up the thread a bit. Youve jumped in half way through.

We only know that because I asked the question.

Of course.

I've just gone up the thread a bit, and as far as I can tell, you *did* introduce the card, by slyly asking:

--quote Can the OP tell us if the cheques were issued in conjunction with a Cheque Guarantee Card? If so, the 6 month rules does not apply.

--unquote

Well, some of us can read between the lines, dontcha know, without asking pointless questions.

Ah, isn't this fun, and oh, Happy New Year, by the way, you old duffer, and may you enjoy a long and blissful retirement. Those Adjustamatic chairs are brill, aren't they?

So, having now established that it makes no difference whether it was guaranteed, can we please get back to my question what difference it being a gift makes to whether you can successfully sue on the cheque?