Re: Sending a £8,000 cheque by ordinary post?
- From: ®i©ardo <Here@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 08:14:58 GMT
John Boyle wrote:
In message <1180460892.991778.311240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ian.tomes@xxxxxxxxx writesTry everything to find some other method such as BACS or CHAPS, butAgreed.
failing that I'd write fill the payee's name line as follows:
Mr J Jones, a/c:12345678-------
and then place a special crossing on the cheque, which means another
set of parallel lines (much like the account payee set the bank will
have printed on) across the account payee crossing and then write
between the 2 new lines "Martins Bank plc".
This defends against a fraudster trying to pay the cheque into another
bank, and also *almost* certainly into another account at the same
bank. Special crossings are quite rare now and it may result in some
head scratching at the receivers bank,
Too right!but it is still the legal
position.
Otherwise one step down would be a payee's name line such as:
Martins Bank plc. a/c Mr J Jones--------
Yes.
Furthermore,
The 1992 Cheques act removes the protection previously afforded to a collecting banker when collecting a cheque bearing the restrictive crossing 'a/c payee only'.
'Open' cheques, whilst available, are very rare these days and most books of cheque forms have the two lines already in place and also have the words 'a/c payee only'. This actually gives more protection to the drawer than the '& Co' type crossing to which you refer, even if the collecting banks name is inserted. This is because the 'martins bank' type crossing only restricts the bank which collects the cheque, not the bank into which the funds eventually end up, or the specific account. The 1992 act enables the payee to pay it into any of his accounts anywhere, but in the event of it being stolen and endorsed to a third party then the collecting bank can not achieve the status of a holder in due course and therefore would be liable to the true payee for the amount of the cheque.
Of course, this wouldnt necessarily stop the cheque being paid into an account which genuinely had the same name of the payee, it being somebody else's account though. In this case your final suggestion would get round this, so long as the payee was happy to disclose his bank name and account number. The payee would only be able to pay the cheque in at his own branch but if he went to another bank or branch he would only be able to use a pre-printed pay in slip from a pay in book or the back of the book of cheque forms, and wouldnt be able to use a pay in slip in which the a/c details had been hand written.
What happens if you go one step further and add a specific branch address to Martins Bank within the crossing. As I recall such a cheque could then only be accepted at the nominated branch. However, I accept that things may well have changed in forty plus years since I dealt with such things. I hear they use computers now.
I'm also old enough to remember the real Martins bank, with the magnificent golden grasshopper. Shame on you Barclays, for burying that.
--
Moving things in still pictures!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Sending a £8,000 cheque by ordinary post?
- From: John Boyle
- Re: Sending a £8,000 cheque by ordinary post?
- References:
- Sending a £8,000 cheque by ordinary post?
- From: Jim D
- Re: Sending a £8,000 cheque by ordinary post?
- From: ian . tomes
- Re: Re: Sending a £8,000 cheque by ordinary post?
- From: John Boyle
- Sending a £8,000 cheque by ordinary post?
- Prev by Date: Re: HELP! Virgin Active have instructed a debt recovery agency for a cancelled contract
- Next by Date: Re: HELP! Virgin Active have instructed a debt recovery agency for a cancelled contract
- Previous by thread: Re: Re: Sending a £8,000 cheque by ordinary post?
- Next by thread: Re: Sending a £8,000 cheque by ordinary post?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|