If the check is actually from 1940 it will be rejected as a "stale"
check. The bank teller should have no difficulty recognizing the check as
If the date on the check is just an error then it's hard to say whether
the teller will notice the problem. If the teller does, he should reject the
check and advise you to get a new check.
I'd gamble on the teller not noticing the date.
Shouldn't the teller realise it's a mistake and just accept it? I mean if the date was 6 months ago, it could be an old cheque, and the person who wrote it should not be expecting it to be cashed, but clearly this cheque is not a 1940s cheque, so it's a mistake. We'll see....
A cheque is valid for as long as the debt between the two parties
(i.e. issuer and payee) exists. In other words, cheques don?t have an
expiration date. However, it is common banking practice to reject
cheques that are over six months old to protect the payer, in case the
payment has been made another way or the cheque may have been lost or
He certainly would since the sum would be £20 15s 2d !
In any case the chances are that the account against which the cheque
was drawn no longer exists. When an account is closed, any cleared
cheques are first honoured from it. Others are referred to drawer.
Cheques are not drawn against banks but the accounts of customers, They
are instructions of a customer to his bank with regard to his account.
The bank will carry them out only if it is in a position to do so.
I assume "discretionary" includes cheques which have quite obviously bee=
n dated wrongly. If the cheque was really from 1940, it would look very =
old and yellow or tattered, and be of a completely different design.
The "new labour" government has just announced that they are changing th=
eir party emblem from a red rose to a condom, as they believe it most ac=
curately represents the governments political stance.
A condom stands up to inflation, halts production, destroys the next gen=
eration, protects a bunch of pricks and gives you a false sense of secur=
ity when you're actually being screwed.
She does have dementia or something similar. She's not at all with it. That doesn't mean the bank should have any right to interfere, that's up to her relatives.
The "new labour" government has just announced that they are changing their party emblem from a red rose to a condom, as they believe it most accurately represents the governments political stance.
A condom stands up to inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks and gives you a false sense of security when you're actually being screwed.
Um, you're assuming this cheque was written in 1940?!
Hey diddle diddle the cat took a piddle,
All over the bedside clock.
The little dog laughed to see such fun.
Then died of electric shock.
No. The teller should follow the bank's procedures if he wishes to remain
I'd still just present the check. There's a good chance the teller won't
notice the date. Clearly, you did not.
Also the amount to pay would be in Pounds, Shillings and Pence.
I once avoided a wheel clamp fee by writing last years date on the
cheque. The bank spotted it and returned the cheque. The wheel clamper
didn't have my address. Win, win.
It will probably fail in clearing and if you are unlucky lock down her
account completely depending on how convincing her signature is compared
to the one that the bank holds on file.
They have a duty of care to her and as such will be cautious.
You will find then that at some point her degraded signature or mistakes
made on cheques will trigger a failure and they will then bounce any and
all transactions until you register an LPA with them.
Even then after registering the LPA some banks can be complete bastards
and demand a letter from the GP *in addition* to the formal LPA.