Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Who sets the value of a cheque ?
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Phil Allison
May 16, 2013, 1:51:30 AM5/16/13
to
** Who determines what value is written on a cheque ?
Cheques have the value written both in words and numerals - to defeat
tampering and prevent ambiguity. So it cannot go wrong - right ?
Recently, a cheque cleared through my account as being $200 under the value
I had written on it. I also had a printed receipt for the same cheque, with
the exact same error.
A visit to my bank soon revealed that as cheques pass through their
overnight clearance centre - an image is taken and stored. A bank staffer
was able to show me this image, once he had the cheque number etc. There was
my cheque, clear as crystal on his LCD screen showing an amount $200 more
than the bank's records showed.
The staffer assured me that since all cheques were scanned by an optical
recognition device, the written amount never mattered. This is very hard to
swallow.
My hunch is that when the person to whom I handed the cheque entered numbers
into a computer - she made a one digit error. The computer then spewed out a
receipt and also added my cheque to a long list with - the same error.
This list was then presented along with all the cheques to the company's
bank, a day or so later.
The staffer at that bank never even looked at the cheques.
The optical scanner at the clearance centre only reads the code on the
cheque verifying the cheque's number, issuing branch and account number. The
values are taken as already keyed in when the cheques were presented.
So who sets the value on a cheque ?
BTW:
I was advised to give the other party another cheque for $200 and that would
solve it, as clearance was now final.
Hogwash.
.... Phil
Sylvia Else
May 16, 2013, 2:54:28 AM5/16/13
to
On 16/05/2013 3:51 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> ** Who determines what value is written on a cheque ?
>
> Cheques have the value written both in words and numerals - to defeat
> tampering and prevent ambiguity. So it cannot go wrong - right ?
>
> Recently, a cheque cleared through my account as being $200 under the value
> I had written on it. I also had a printed receipt for the same cheque, with
> the exact same error.
>
> A visit to my bank soon revealed that as cheques pass through their
> overnight clearance centre - an image is taken and stored. A bank staffer
> was able to show me this image, once he had the cheque number etc. There was
> my cheque, clear as crystal on his LCD screen showing an amount $200 more
> than the bank's records showed.
>
> The staffer assured me that since all cheques were scanned by an optical
> recognition device, the written amount never mattered. This is very hard to
> swallow.
Clearly wrong, anyway. If the amount expressed in words is less than the
> ** Who determines what value is written on a cheque ?
>
> Cheques have the value written both in words and numerals - to defeat
> tampering and prevent ambiguity. So it cannot go wrong - right ?
>
> Recently, a cheque cleared through my account as being $200 under the value
> I had written on it. I also had a printed receipt for the same cheque, with
> the exact same error.
>
> A visit to my bank soon revealed that as cheques pass through their
> overnight clearance centre - an image is taken and stored. A bank staffer
> was able to show me this image, once he had the cheque number etc. There was
> my cheque, clear as crystal on his LCD screen showing an amount $200 more
> than the bank's records showed.
>
> The staffer assured me that since all cheques were scanned by an optical
> recognition device, the written amount never mattered. This is very hard to
> swallow.
amount expressing in digits, then the amount expressed in words is the
amount to be paid. Ignoring the words is asking for trouble.
>
> My hunch is that when the person to whom I handed the cheque entered numbers
> into a computer - she made a one digit error. The computer then spewed out a
> receipt and also added my cheque to a long list with - the same error.
>
> This list was then presented along with all the cheques to the company's
> bank, a day or so later.
>
> The staffer at that bank never even looked at the cheques.
>
> The optical scanner at the clearance centre only reads the code on the
> cheque verifying the cheque's number, issuing branch and account number. The
> values are taken as already keyed in when the cheques were presented.
the cheque, and the results are compared), and there probably is, given
how rarely this sort of error occurs. Most likely, you got caught in a
situation where both entries were incorrect in the same way.
>
> So who sets the value on a cheque ?
Clearly, the drawer does.
> So who sets the value on a cheque ?
>
> BTW:
>
> I was advised to give the other party another cheque for $200 and that would
> solve it, as clearance was now final.
>
> Hogwash.
>
>
> .... Phil
payment. Until it has been paid in full, the drawee bank has not
complied with the order to pay written by you.
The payee's redress is against the drawee bank, not against you. Were
you to send another cheque, there would be a lack of consideration.
If the bank had paid too much, you'd point out that they cannot debit
your account for the excess, and that it's up to the bank to unravel
their error. They'd be unlikely to take the "it's cleared, it's final"
approach then.
Sylvia.
Pelican
May 16, 2013, 3:33:19 AM5/16/13
to
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:avje56...@mid.individual.net...
> On 16/05/2013 3:51 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>> ** Who determines what value is written on a cheque ?
>>
>> Cheques have the value written both in words and numerals - to defeat
>> tampering and prevent ambiguity. So it cannot go wrong - right ?
>>
>> Recently, a cheque cleared through my account as being $200 under the
>> value
>> I had written on it. I also had a printed receipt for the same cheque,
>> with
>> the exact same error.
>>
>> A visit to my bank soon revealed that as cheques pass through their
>> overnight clearance centre - an image is taken and stored. A bank
>> staffer
>> was able to show me this image, once he had the cheque number etc. There
>> was
>> my cheque, clear as crystal on his LCD screen showing an amount $200 more
>> than the bank's records showed.
>>
>> The staffer assured me that since all cheques were scanned by an optical
>> recognition device, the written amount never mattered. This is very hard
>> to
>> swallow.
>
> Clearly wrong, anyway. If the amount expressed in words is less than the
> amount expressing in digits, then the amount expressed in words is the
> amount to be paid. Ignoring the words is asking for trouble.
Ignoring the discrepancy is asking for trouble. It puts whoever holds the
>> ** Who determines what value is written on a cheque ?
>>
>> Cheques have the value written both in words and numerals - to defeat
>> tampering and prevent ambiguity. So it cannot go wrong - right ?
>>
>> Recently, a cheque cleared through my account as being $200 under the
>> value
>> I had written on it. I also had a printed receipt for the same cheque,
>> with
>> the exact same error.
>>
>> A visit to my bank soon revealed that as cheques pass through their
>> overnight clearance centre - an image is taken and stored. A bank
>> staffer
>> was able to show me this image, once he had the cheque number etc. There
>> was
>> my cheque, clear as crystal on his LCD screen showing an amount $200 more
>> than the bank's records showed.
>>
>> The staffer assured me that since all cheques were scanned by an optical
>> recognition device, the written amount never mattered. This is very hard
>> to
>> swallow.
>
> Clearly wrong, anyway. If the amount expressed in words is less than the
> amount expressing in digits, then the amount expressed in words is the
> amount to be paid. Ignoring the words is asking for trouble.
cheque on notice that there is a problem to be resolved.
>> My hunch is that when the person to whom I handed the cheque entered
>> numbers
>> into a computer - she made a one digit error. The computer then spewed
>> out a
>> receipt and also added my cheque to a long list with - the same error.
>>
>> This list was then presented along with all the cheques to the company's
>> bank, a day or so later.
>>
>> The staffer at that bank never even looked at the cheques.
>>
>> The optical scanner at the clearance centre only reads the code on the
>> cheque verifying the cheque's number, issuing branch and account number.
>> The
>> values are taken as already keyed in when the cheques were presented.
>
> There's usually double keying (another person independently processes the
> cheque, and the results are compared), and there probably is, given how
> rarely this sort of error occurs. Most likely, you got caught in a
> situation where both entries were incorrect in the same way.
>>
>> So who sets the value on a cheque ?
>
> Clearly, the drawer does.
>> BTW:
>>
>> I was advised to give the other party another cheque for $200 and that
>> would
>> solve it, as clearance was now final.
>>
>> Hogwash.
>>
>>
>> .... Phil
>
> On the face of it, the payee has caused the cheque to be presented for
> payment. Until it has been paid in full, the drawee bank has not complied
> with the order to pay written by you.
> The payee's redress is against the drawee bank, not against you. Were you
> to send another cheque, there would be a lack of consideration.
>
> If the bank had paid too much, you'd point out that they cannot debit your
> account for the excess, and that it's up to the bank to unravel their
> error. They'd be unlikely to take the "it's cleared, it's final" approach
> then.
the matter up the line to get it resolved correctly. It might be simpler
all round just to pay the $200, avoiding any nuisance to the innocent payee.
Unless someone wants to make an issue of it, of course.
Phil Allison
May 16, 2013, 3:30:25 AM5/16/13
to
"Sylvia Else"
>
>> Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>> ** Who determines what value is written on a cheque ?
>>
>> Cheques have the value written both in words and numerals - to defeat
>> tampering and prevent ambiguity. So it cannot go wrong - right ?
>>
>> Recently, a cheque cleared through my account as being $200 under the
>> value
>> I had written on it. I also had a printed receipt for the same cheque,
>> with
>> the exact same error.
>>
>> A visit to my bank soon revealed that as cheques pass through their
>> overnight clearance centre - an image is taken and stored. A bank
>> staffer
>> was able to show me this image, once he had the cheque number etc. There
>> was
>> my cheque, clear as crystal on his LCD screen showing an amount $200 more
>> than the bank's records showed.
>>
>> The staffer assured me that since all cheques were scanned by an optical
>> recognition device, the written amount never mattered. This is very hard
>> to
>> swallow.
>
> Clearly wrong, anyway. If the amount expressed in words is less than the
> amount expressing in digits, then the amount expressed in words is the
> amount to be paid. Ignoring the words is asking for trouble.
** Absolutely.
>> Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>> ** Who determines what value is written on a cheque ?
>>
>> Cheques have the value written both in words and numerals - to defeat
>> tampering and prevent ambiguity. So it cannot go wrong - right ?
>>
>> Recently, a cheque cleared through my account as being $200 under the
>> value
>> I had written on it. I also had a printed receipt for the same cheque,
>> with
>> the exact same error.
>>
>> A visit to my bank soon revealed that as cheques pass through their
>> overnight clearance centre - an image is taken and stored. A bank
>> staffer
>> was able to show me this image, once he had the cheque number etc. There
>> was
>> my cheque, clear as crystal on his LCD screen showing an amount $200 more
>> than the bank's records showed.
>>
>> The staffer assured me that since all cheques were scanned by an optical
>> recognition device, the written amount never mattered. This is very hard
>> to
>> swallow.
>
> Clearly wrong, anyway. If the amount expressed in words is less than the
> amount expressing in digits, then the amount expressed in words is the
> amount to be paid. Ignoring the words is asking for trouble.
>> My hunch is that when the person to whom I handed the cheque entered
>> numbers
>> into a computer - she made a one digit error. The computer then spewed
>> out a
>> receipt and also added my cheque to a long list with - the same error.
>>
>> This list was then presented along with all the cheques to the company's
>> bank, a day or so later.
>>
>> The staffer at that bank never even looked at the cheques.
>>
>> The optical scanner at the clearance centre only reads the code on the
>> cheque verifying the cheque's number, issuing branch and account number.
>> The
>> values are taken as already keyed in when the cheques were presented.
>
> There's usually double keying (another person independently processes the
> cheque, and the results are compared), and there probably is, given how
> rarely this sort of error occurs. Most likely, you got caught in a
> situation where both entries were incorrect in the same way.
The written words were clear as crystal and the numerals almost perfect.
The amount is a regular payment and I have handed over more than 100 exactly
similar cheques in the past.
BTW: I bank with Westpac.
> On the face of it, the payee has caused the cheque to be presented for
> payment. Until it has been paid in full, the drawee bank has not complied
> with the order to pay written by you.
>
> The payee's redress is against the drawee bank, not against you. Were you
> to send another cheque, there would be a lack of consideration.
>
> If the bank had paid too much, you'd point out that they cannot debit your
> account for the excess, and that it's up to the bank to unravel their
> error. They'd be unlikely to take the "it's cleared, it's final" approach
> then.
Add an extra zero and what happens ??
So, I for one will be making my own scans of every cheque I write in future.
Westpac claimed I could NOT have the cleared cheque back, as was once the
practice in the past.
Maybe they would have printed out a copy of the scan for me, if I made
enough fuss.
Hmmmmm.....
... Phil
Sylvia Else
May 16, 2013, 5:17:45 AM5/16/13
to
On 16/05/2013 5:33 PM, Pelican wrote:
> The practical problem is that it might take too much time and effort to
> push the matter up the line to get it resolved correctly. It might be
> simpler all round just to pay the $200, avoiding any nuisance to the
> innocent payee. Unless someone wants to make an issue of it, of course.
There is a clear risk that the drawee bank will realise its error at
> The practical problem is that it might take too much time and effort to
> push the matter up the line to get it resolved correctly. It might be
> simpler all round just to pay the $200, avoiding any nuisance to the
> innocent payee. Unless someone wants to make an issue of it, of course.
some point, and unilaterally correct it, without reference to Phil. If
Phil pays $200 to the payee now, he may find that he's paid it twice,
and have great difficulty having that transaction reversed.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
May 16, 2013, 5:23:03 AM5/16/13
to
zero, and the event will happen sometimes. Winning the lottery is a low
probability event for an individual, but people still win frequently.
Sylvia.
Phil Allison
May 16, 2013, 5:40:30 AM5/16/13
to
"Sylvia Else"
>
> There is a clear risk that the drawee bank will realise its error at some
> point, and unilaterally correct it, without reference to Phil. If Phil
> pays $200 to the payee now, he may find that he's paid it twice, and have
> great difficulty having that transaction reversed.
>
** Bingo.
> There is a clear risk that the drawee bank will realise its error at some
> point, and unilaterally correct it, without reference to Phil. If Phil
> pays $200 to the payee now, he may find that he's paid it twice, and have
> great difficulty having that transaction reversed.
>
... Phil
Pelican
May 16, 2013, 6:35:37 AM5/16/13
to
"Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:avjnsi...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Sylvia Else"
>>
>> There is a clear risk that the drawee bank will realise its error at some
>> point, and unilaterally correct it, without reference to Phil.
Are you serious?
> "Sylvia Else"
>>
>> There is a clear risk that the drawee bank will realise its error at some
>> point, and unilaterally correct it, without reference to Phil.
>> If Phil pays $200 to the payee now, he may find that he's paid it twice,
>> and have great difficulty having that transaction reversed.
>>
>
> ** Bingo.
>
>
>
> ... Phil
So, tell the payee to go after the bank that didn't do as it should have
done? The payee will love that. Or stir up the relevant Ombudsman?
I prefer Occam's razor.
Sylvia Else
May 16, 2013, 6:58:23 AM5/16/13
to
On 16/05/2013 8:35 PM, Pelican wrote:
>
>
> "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:avjnsi...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Sylvia Else"
>>>
>>> There is a clear risk that the drawee bank will realise its error at
>>> some point, and unilaterally correct it, without reference to Phil.
>
> Are you serious?
I was, yes. I can see nothing to prevent the bank from doing that.
>
>
> "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:avjnsi...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Sylvia Else"
>>>
>>> There is a clear risk that the drawee bank will realise its error at
>>> some point, and unilaterally correct it, without reference to Phil.
>
> Are you serious?
>
>>> If Phil pays $200 to the payee now, he may find that he's paid it
>>> twice, and have great difficulty having that transaction reversed.
>
> Fantasy.
> So, tell the payee to go after the bank that didn't do as it should have
> done? The payee will love that. Or stir up the relevant Ombudsman?
> I prefer Occam's razor.
obtain an undertaking from the bank, in writing, that it will not pay
the remaining $200.
Sylvia.
Pelican
May 16, 2013, 7:26:52 AM5/16/13
to
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> On 16/05/2013 8:35 PM, Pelican wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:avjnsi...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Sylvia Else"
>>>>
>>>> There is a clear risk that the drawee bank will realise its error at
>>>> some point, and unilaterally correct it, without reference to Phil.
>>
>> Are you serious?
>
> I was, yes. I can see nothing to prevent the bank from doing that.
Apart from the fact that the bank has somewhat more to do than worry about
>>
>>
>> "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:avjnsi...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Sylvia Else"
>>>>
>>>> There is a clear risk that the drawee bank will realise its error at
>>>> some point, and unilaterally correct it, without reference to Phil.
>>
>> Are you serious?
>
> I was, yes. I can see nothing to prevent the bank from doing that.
such matters.
>>>> If Phil pays $200 to the payee now, he may find that he's paid it
>>>> twice, and have great difficulty having that transaction reversed.
>>
>> Fantasy.
>
> Why?
>> So, tell the payee to go after the bank that didn't do as it should have
>> done? The payee will love that. Or stir up the relevant Ombudsman?
>> I prefer Occam's razor.
>
> At the very least, before paying the $200 to the payee, Phil should obtain
> an undertaking from the bank, in writing, that it will not pay the
> remaining $200.
was a simple problem, apparently created by the sloppy treatment of a
cheque. It is easily solved, with a minimum of fuss.
DavidW
May 16, 2013, 7:36:35 PM5/16/13
to
Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16/05/2013 3:51 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>> The staffer at that bank never even looked at the cheques.
>>
>> The optical scanner at the clearance centre only reads the code on
>> the cheque verifying the cheque's number, issuing branch and account
>> number. The values are taken as already keyed in when the cheques
>> were presented.
>
> There's usually double keying (another person independently processes
> the cheque, and the results are compared), and there probably is,
> given how rarely this sort of error occurs.
I'm doubtful about that. Is the second person in the back somewhere, and when
> On 16/05/2013 3:51 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>> The staffer at that bank never even looked at the cheques.
>>
>> The optical scanner at the clearance centre only reads the code on
>> the cheque verifying the cheque's number, issuing branch and account
>> number. The values are taken as already keyed in when the cheques
>> were presented.
>
> There's usually double keying (another person independently processes
> the cheque, and the results are compared), and there probably is,
> given how rarely this sort of error occurs.
does he/she key it? Given that banks like to slash their costs to the bone,
double keying of cheque amounts might be one of the first occupations to go. Or
to save some time the second person merely checks the first person's entry
rather than actually keys the amount from the cheque. If the second person is
given a pile of cheques at the end of the day, it's such a repetitive, robotic
task that there's a fair chance an error would be missed.
The number of cheques in the system has fallen dramatically. I don't think I
write more than one a year now. I've read of suggestions that they be eliminated
altogether. It may be that they have become such a minor part of banking that
banks have lost interest in rigorously checking for their own staff's errors.
Peter Jason
May 16, 2013, 7:45:42 PM5/16/13
to
system until someone objects to the bank.
Same goes for EFT payments.
Pelican
May 16, 2013, 7:53:09 PM5/16/13
to
"Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote in message
news:hrrap8trbn9ajl1j9...@4ax.com...
was "It's your problem. Issue another cheque for the balance due."
Pelican
May 16, 2013, 7:54:52 PM5/16/13
to
"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
news:kn3qi6$vb3$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
not checking for errors.
DavidW
May 16, 2013, 8:05:56 PM5/16/13
to
Pelican wrote:
> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>> The number of cheques in the system has fallen dramatically. I don't
>> think I write more than one a year now. I've read of suggestions
>> that they be eliminated altogether. It may be that they have become
>> such a minor part of banking that banks have lost interest in
>> rigorously checking for their own staff's errors.
>
> When there were lots of cheques, the banks had an even greater
> interest in not checking for errors.
No, they didn't. Too many errors = too many pissed off customers. Now there
>> think I write more than one a year now. I've read of suggestions
>> that they be eliminated altogether. It may be that they have become
>> such a minor part of banking that banks have lost interest in
>> rigorously checking for their own staff's errors.
>
> When there were lots of cheques, the banks had an even greater
> interest in not checking for errors.
aren't enough for them to bother with.
DavidW
May 16, 2013, 8:19:06 PM5/16/13
to
>> In my experience the cheque will sail thru the
>> system until someone objects to the bank.
>
> Which is exactly what happened. When there was an objection, the
> response was "It's your problem. Issue another cheque for the
> balance due."
That doesn't make sense, at least for the vast majority of cases in which the
>> system until someone objects to the bank.
>
> Which is exactly what happened. When there was an objection, the
> response was "It's your problem. Issue another cheque for the
> balance due."
payee knows the amount expected. The payee receives a cheque drawn on an account
at Bank A for an amount due. The payee then takes it to their bank, Bank B, but
Bank B deposits $200 less than that in the payee's account. The payee then
complains to Bank B that the amount deposited is less than the amount stated on
the cheque presented. If Bank B stuffed up, Bank B should fix it. If Bank B
finds that Bank A stuffed up in clearing the cheque, it will notify Bank A and
Bank A should fix it. At no stage should the drawer of the cheque become
involved.
DavidW
May 16, 2013, 8:21:20 PM5/16/13
to
Oops.
> ...at least for the vast majority of cases in which the payee knows the amount
> expected.
Should be:
> ...at least for the vast majority of cases, in which the payee knows the
> amount expected.
> ...at least for the vast majority of cases in which the payee knows the amount
> expected.
Should be:
> ...at least for the vast majority of cases, in which the payee knows the
> amount expected.
Sylvia Else
May 16, 2013, 8:22:34 PM5/16/13
to
On 16/05/2013 9:26 PM, Pelican wrote:
>
>
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:avjsei...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 16/05/2013 8:35 PM, Pelican wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:avjnsi...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Sylvia Else"
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a clear risk that the drawee bank will realise its error at
>>>>> some point, and unilaterally correct it, without reference to Phil.
>>>
>>> Are you serious?
>>
>> I was, yes. I can see nothing to prevent the bank from doing that.
>
> Apart from the fact that the bank has somewhat more to do than worry
> about such matters.
I was thinking that the banks may have some reconcillation process that
>
>
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:avjsei...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 16/05/2013 8:35 PM, Pelican wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:avjnsi...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Sylvia Else"
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a clear risk that the drawee bank will realise its error at
>>>>> some point, and unilaterally correct it, without reference to Phil.
>>>
>>> Are you serious?
>>
>> I was, yes. I can see nothing to prevent the bank from doing that.
>
> Apart from the fact that the bank has somewhat more to do than worry
> about such matters.
brings it about. For example, when one pays a cheque into one's account,
the bank initially records the value of the cheque against one's
account, even though the funds are uncleared. If the cheque is honoured
then the funds become cleared. If the funds are dishonoured, then the
account is adjusted accordingly. In this case, it appears that the
amount paid was different from what was initially recorded. The banks
may between them have some process for addressing the discrepancy. I
wouldn't be willing to take the word of a customer facing bank officer
that the matter has been completely finalised.
>
>>>>> If Phil pays $200 to the payee now, he may find that he's paid it
>>>>> twice, and have great difficulty having that transaction reversed.
>>>
>>> Fantasy.
>>
>> Why?
>
> See above.
>
>>> So, tell the payee to go after the bank that didn't do as it should have
>>> done? The payee will love that. Or stir up the relevant Ombudsman?
>>> I prefer Occam's razor.
>>
>> At the very least, before paying the $200 to the payee, Phil should
>> obtain an undertaking from the bank, in writing, that it will not pay
>> the remaining $200.
>
> An undertaking? Just tell it not to do that. In writing, of course.
> This was a simple problem, apparently created by the sloppy treatment of
> a cheque. It is easily solved, with a minimum of fuss.
the cheque had not yet been presented for payment, but it has been.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
May 16, 2013, 8:27:28 PM5/16/13
to
On 17/05/2013 9:36 AM, DavidW wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 16/05/2013 3:51 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>>>
>>> The staffer at that bank never even looked at the cheques.
>>>
>>> The optical scanner at the clearance centre only reads the code on
>>> the cheque verifying the cheque's number, issuing branch and account
>>> number. The values are taken as already keyed in when the cheques
>>> were presented.
>>
>> There's usually double keying (another person independently processes
>> the cheque, and the results are compared), and there probably is,
>> given how rarely this sort of error occurs.
>
> I'm doubtful about that. Is the second person in the back somewhere, and when
> does he/she key it? Given that banks like to slash their costs to the bone,
> double keying of cheque amounts might be one of the first occupations to go. Or
> to save some time the second person merely checks the first person's entry
> rather than actually keys the amount from the cheque. If the second person is
> given a pile of cheques at the end of the day, it's such a repetitive, robotic
> task that there's a fair chance an error would be missed.
Clearly, that approach is so error prone as to be not worth the cost.
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 16/05/2013 3:51 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>>>
>>> The staffer at that bank never even looked at the cheques.
>>>
>>> The optical scanner at the clearance centre only reads the code on
>>> the cheque verifying the cheque's number, issuing branch and account
>>> number. The values are taken as already keyed in when the cheques
>>> were presented.
>>
>> There's usually double keying (another person independently processes
>> the cheque, and the results are compared), and there probably is,
>> given how rarely this sort of error occurs.
>
> I'm doubtful about that. Is the second person in the back somewhere, and when
> does he/she key it? Given that banks like to slash their costs to the bone,
> double keying of cheque amounts might be one of the first occupations to go. Or
> to save some time the second person merely checks the first person's entry
> rather than actually keys the amount from the cheque. If the second person is
> given a pile of cheques at the end of the day, it's such a repetitive, robotic
> task that there's a fair chance an error would be missed.
Anyway, I suspect that checking is no quicker, if done properly, than
rekeying.
>
> The number of cheques in the system has fallen dramatically. I don't think I
> write more than one a year now. I've read of suggestions that they be eliminated
> altogether. It may be that they have become such a minor part of banking that
> banks have lost interest in rigorously checking for their own staff's errors.
>
or impossible to recover. Also, such mistakes can lead to other cheques
being incorrectly dishonoured, which can result in defamation actions
against the bank. Even absent such actions, dealing with complaints has
a significant cost.
The overall cost of rekeying would drop in line with the drop in the
number of cheques.
Sylvia.
Pelican
May 16, 2013, 9:06:43 PM5/16/13
to
"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
lots of cheques to have the legislation amended to limit their liability.
The banks didn't want to have to check the fine detail of cheques, because
it cost them too much. The legislation was amended, of course, so I didn't
imagine it. Eh?
Pelican
May 16, 2013, 9:08:21 PM5/16/13
to
"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
Pelican
May 16, 2013, 9:09:25 PM5/16/13
to
"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
DavidW
May 16, 2013, 9:12:11 PM5/16/13
to
Pelican wrote:
> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>> Pelican wrote:
>>> When there were lots of cheques, the banks had an even greater
>>> interest in not checking for errors.
>>
>> No, they didn't. Too many errors = too many pissed off customers. Now
>> there aren't enough for them to bother with.
>
> Oh? Then I must have imagined the campaign by the banks when there
> were lots of cheques to have the legislation amended to limit their
> liability. The banks didn't want to have to check the fine detail of
> cheques, because it cost them too much. The legislation was amended,
> of course, so I didn't imagine it. Eh?
Don't know. Never heard of it.
>>> When there were lots of cheques, the banks had an even greater
>>> interest in not checking for errors.
>>
>> No, they didn't. Too many errors = too many pissed off customers. Now
>> there aren't enough for them to bother with.
>
> Oh? Then I must have imagined the campaign by the banks when there
> were lots of cheques to have the legislation amended to limit their
> liability. The banks didn't want to have to check the fine detail of
> cheques, because it cost them too much. The legislation was amended,
> of course, so I didn't imagine it. Eh?
DavidW
May 16, 2013, 9:23:39 PM5/16/13
to
Pelican wrote:
> Sure, but that's not the scenario here.
Well, the scenario here is as clear as mud. The OP appears to have both written
> Sure, but that's not the scenario here.
the cheque and presented it to the bank.
Phil Allison
May 16, 2013, 9:27:22 PM5/16/13
to
"DavidW"
... Phil
Peter Jason
May 16, 2013, 10:13:24 PM5/16/13
to
experience. Lucky if it's done once a month.
Sometimes it takes an accountant to do it at the
end of the year, 12 months hence. Then the
"stale cheque" rule kicks in. Even EFT payments
enter the wrong account because the payee has a
similar name to some other and there it stays
until someone squeals. I've had to show a debtor
my bank statement to convince him he sent the
money to the wrong account.
Monthly bank rocs are the minimum advisable. Get
some good software, and insist the bank sends you
a statement once a month!
If a chq has not been presented within a month,
cancel it pronto.
DavidW
May 16, 2013, 11:25:04 PM5/16/13
to
Peter Jason wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 10:19:06 +1000, "DavidW"
> <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>> That doesn't make sense, at least for the vast majority of cases in
>> which the payee knows the amount expected. The payee receives a
>> cheque drawn on an account at Bank A for an amount due. The payee
>> then takes it to their bank, Bank B, but Bank B deposits $200 less
>> than that in the payee's account. The payee then complains to Bank B
>> that the amount deposited is less than the amount stated on the
>> cheque presented. If Bank B stuffed up, Bank B should fix it. If
>> Bank B finds that Bank A stuffed up in clearing the cheque, it will
>> notify Bank A and Bank A should fix it. At no stage should the
>> drawer of the cheque become involved.
>>
>
> Bank reconciliation's take time, and often some
> experience. Lucky if it's done once a month.
> Sometimes it takes an accountant to do it at the
> end of the year, 12 months hence. Then the
> "stale cheque" rule kicks in.
Interesting mixing of metaphors they have. Only a cheque can both "bounce" and
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 10:19:06 +1000, "DavidW"
> <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>> That doesn't make sense, at least for the vast majority of cases in
>> which the payee knows the amount expected. The payee receives a
>> cheque drawn on an account at Bank A for an amount due. The payee
>> then takes it to their bank, Bank B, but Bank B deposits $200 less
>> than that in the payee's account. The payee then complains to Bank B
>> that the amount deposited is less than the amount stated on the
>> cheque presented. If Bank B stuffed up, Bank B should fix it. If
>> Bank B finds that Bank A stuffed up in clearing the cheque, it will
>> notify Bank A and Bank A should fix it. At no stage should the
>> drawer of the cheque become involved.
>>
>
> Bank reconciliation's take time, and often some
> experience. Lucky if it's done once a month.
> Sometimes it takes an accountant to do it at the
> end of the year, 12 months hence. Then the
> "stale cheque" rule kicks in.
go "stale". I thought it was 15 months, though.
> Even EFT payments
> enter the wrong account because the payee has a
> similar name to some other and there it stays
> until someone squeals. I've had to show a debtor
> my bank statement to convince him he sent the
> money to the wrong account.
get a transfer wrong.
Peter Jason
May 19, 2013, 10:01:20 PM5/19/13
to
has a list of payees selectable for payment and
some have similar names. e.g.
Medieval Pty Ltd
mediaeval Pty Ltd.
It's easy to select the wrong one. I instruct
my debtors, some of who have their knuckles closer
to the ground that others, to at least list one of
similar names in capitals to make selection
easier.
>
0 new messages