The Cheque Bounces Back
Discussion
Sgt Bilko said:
SC7 said:
f
k's sake. Why?!
They're a pain in the arse.
Archaic. No good reason to keep them.
Unless you are a charity which needs two signatures to authorise payments to prevent fraud...k's sake. Why?!They're a pain in the arse.
Archaic. No good reason to keep them.
Even though many businesses do not need or accept cheques, there are many, many small businesses, charities, clubs and societies that still need a facility to accept cheques and the ability to pay them too.
The key is when payments need multiple authorisation - which is often required in clubs, societies and charities.
There is also the issue of access to bank accounts through computers. With a business, there will be designated people who have access to the bank through the office computer. With charities and clubs, there often isn't a charity or club computer. In fact, the organisation may not even have a fixed central office for admin.
And even if one person was able to be appointed as the designated "officer" and use their home and home computer as the official "club/society/charity ciomputer", the voluntary nature of such organuisations menas that this position would be switched to a new individual within a few years and the whole autrhorisation process would need to be gone through all over again.
I think this is good news and an about face by the banks in the teeth of opposition from representative groups.
SC7 said:
fk's sake. Why?!
They're a pain in the arse.
Archaic. No good reason to keep them.
Lots of old people use them, and as it happens we are going to have lots of old people for longer i nthe coming future.k's sake. Why?!They're a pain in the arse.
Archaic. No good reason to keep them.
Funnily enough I took a cheque out with me this week (first oen for maybe a year) to pay the physio incase I couldnt get to the cashpoint, I only ended up paying cash because I don't like cheques being cashed 6 weeks after giving them.
Sgt Bilko said:
SC7 said:
fk's sake. Why?!
They're a pain in the arse.
Archaic. No good reason to keep them.
Unless you are a charity which needs two signatures to authorise payments to prevent fraud...k's sake. Why?!They're a pain in the arse.
Archaic. No good reason to keep them.
Relying on signatures on cheques to prevent fraud is hopeful, to say the least. The chances of the bank actually verifying cheques against the mandate are low, and the chances of them spotting the difference between a genuine signature and a fraudster with half an hour's signing practice even lower.
joewilliams said:
Sgt Bilko said:
SC7 said:
fk's sake. Why?!
They're a pain in the arse.
Archaic. No good reason to keep them.
Unless you are a charity which needs two signatures to authorise payments to prevent fraud...k's sake. Why?!They're a pain in the arse.
Archaic. No good reason to keep them.
It is a lot more dificult in the voluntary sector where the necessary individuals may not be physically near each other or even contactable when something needs to be paid.
Sgt Bilko said:
SC7 said:
fk's sake. Why?!
They're a pain in the arse.
Archaic. No good reason to keep them.
Unless you are a charity which needs two signatures to authorise payments to prevent fraud...k's sake. Why?!They're a pain in the arse.
Archaic. No good reason to keep them.
Quite a few other reasons too but security is the best part of cheques for us. Most of our invoices are paid by cheque (both in and out) and setting up bacs for lots of smallish amounts of money would be a PITA, and as we generally deal with others similar organisations who prefer cheques it means there is one less problem we need to deal with in the future.
joewilliams said:
Relying on signatures on cheques to prevent fraud is hopeful, to say the least. The chances of the bank actually verifying cheques against the mandate are low, and the chances of them spotting the difference between a genuine signature and a fraudster with half an hour's signing practice even lower.
There is always scope for a fraudster but surely the point of the two signature requirement is that it deters fraud as, if the second signatory isn't in on the fraud then trying to withdraw funds fraudulently is going to be a lot harder.The really dishonest are never going to be stopped but chancers can be.
Usually when booking craft fairs and other events, I have to pay up front with the booking, and everyone so far has asked for payment via a cheque, so that would have been something that would need some thinking about.
I don't usually take many when doing an event, but did have a customer on Saturday at a fair that really wanted a piece of jewellery, had no cash with her, and I don't have a card machine, luckilly she had her cheque book, but she was a little concerned about me accepting it as she can't guarantee it any more.
I'm glad they are staying.
I don't usually take many when doing an event, but did have a customer on Saturday at a fair that really wanted a piece of jewellery, had no cash with her, and I don't have a card machine, luckilly she had her cheque book, but she was a little concerned about me accepting it as she can't guarantee it any more.
I'm glad they are staying.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff