Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Cheque bounced - signature rejected
130 views
Skip to first unread message
Harry Bloomfield
Nov 26, 2015, 1:41:47 PM11/26/15
to
I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.
Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.
--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.
Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.
--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
Tim+
Nov 26, 2015, 1:46:33 PM11/26/15
to
Harry Bloomfield <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
> cheque had been written by me.
>
> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
> certainly not for this reason.
>
Probably a new bank employee who has never seen a cheque before. ;-)
> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
> cheque had been written by me.
>
> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
> certainly not for this reason.
>
Tim
Albert Zweistein
Nov 26, 2015, 1:49:43 PM11/26/15
to
On 26/11/2015 18:41, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
> cheque had been written by me.
>
> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
> certainly not for this reason.
>
I have a couple of times with LLoyds. One time I stormed into my branch
> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
> cheque had been written by me.
>
> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
> certainly not for this reason.
>
demanding an explanation and they showed me the cheque and the sig they
had on record, I have to admit there wasn't much resemblance. Must have
been having a senior moment when I signed it.
Cursitor Doom
Nov 26, 2015, 2:52:58 PM11/26/15
to
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 18:41:44 +0000, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
> cheque had been written by me.
>
> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
> certainly not for this reason.
Wasn't Lloyds, was it? I gather they're having some liquidity issues at
> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
> cheque had been written by me.
>
> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
> certainly not for this reason.
the moment (probably too much exposure to Deutschebank). Anyway, I only
keep enough in my account with them to pay day to day bills just in case
they're seriously in the sh1t, even though they deduct 20 notes a month
for the privilege.
Harry Bloomfield
Nov 26, 2015, 2:54:42 PM11/26/15
to
Cursitor Doom laid this down on his screen :
> Wasn't Lloyds, was it?
No, TSB.
Brian-Gaff
Nov 26, 2015, 3:06:19 PM11/26/15
to
No sounds a bit worrying as a person who cannot see, I often get trusted
people to write mine and then sign them. I doubt very much if my signature
would be much like my original one now.
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"Harry Bloomfield" <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mn.d4617dfb33...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk...
people to write mine and then sign them. I doubt very much if my signature
would be much like my original one now.
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"Harry Bloomfield" <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mn.d4617dfb33...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk...
Martin Brown
Nov 26, 2015, 3:55:18 PM11/26/15
to
On 26/11/2015 18:41, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
> cheque had been written by me.
That is how they do it though. Use other means of payment instead.
> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
> cheque had been written by me.
> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
> certainly not for this reason.
did not match the one they had on file closely enough. Once you have one
cheque bounce they will scrutinise *every* cheque more closely.
Use electronic payment and it isn't a problem.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
michael adams
Nov 26, 2015, 4:27:26 PM11/26/15
to
"Harry Bloomfield" <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mn.d4617dfb33...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk...
>I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the signature not matching
>the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd thing to do, when they could have just
>rung me to check whether the cheque had been written by me.
Not if you were away on holiday, and the person who stole your
>the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd thing to do, when they could have just
>rung me to check whether the cheque had been written by me.
chequebook might also have had access to your phone. Or had also
stolen your mobile, if appropriate.
>
> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before, certainly not for
> this reason.
regular payees with their own templates. The signature
is a picture file, and so identical every time
michael adams
...
Rod Speed
Nov 26, 2015, 4:50:35 PM11/26/15
to
"michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net> wrote in message
news:n37tbc$tkp$1...@dont-email.me...
The last time I did was with a dinosaur operation that can't
take cards. I used to keep just one cheque in the wallet for
just that sort of event and it was pretty dog eared by the
time that I needed to use it, and he was pretty dubious
about accepting it, but in the end he did and it worked fine.
michael adams
Nov 26, 2015, 5:07:47 PM11/26/15
to
"pamela" <inv...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA55EDE1...@216.151.153.55...
> On 18:41 26 Nov 2015, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
>
>> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
>> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
>> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
>> cheque had been written by me.
>>
>> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
>> certainly not for this reason.
>>
>
> Most cheques are not scrutinised at all for the correct signature but a
>
>> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
>> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
>> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
>> cheque had been written by me.
>>
>> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
>> certainly not for this reason.
>>
>
> high value cheque like yours probably warranted a closer look.
>
> If it was me, I would contact my bank and berate them for not realising
> that a signature changes with time and for not contacting me before
> declining to honour the cheque.
If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret
that as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed
under duress. Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put them
under even more duress to give correct answers to security questions
over the phone.
michael adams
...
Rod Speed
Nov 26, 2015, 5:44:59 PM11/26/15
to
news:n37vn1$6tr$1...@dont-email.me...
If it was signed under duress, why would the person under duress
sign it anything like they normally sign it ? And if there was something
else with their signature already on it, it would make no sense to
deliberately try to make it different enough for the bank to notice
but not those holding a gun to the signer's head etc.
And I just don’t believe that any real crim would ever get
someone to sign a cheque under duress anyway, because
they could just call the bank and tell them to stop the
cheque when the crims had gone off with the cheque.
> Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put them under even
> more duress to give correct answers to security questions over the phone.
Rather unlikely the crims would still be there
when the cheque is getting process by the bank.
You're completely off with the fucking fairys, again.
>
> "pamela" <inv...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:XnsA55EDE1...@216.151.153.55...
>> On 18:41 26 Nov 2015, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
>>
>>> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
>>> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
>>> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
>>> cheque had been written by me.
>>>
>>> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
>>> certainly not for this reason.
>>>
>>
>> Most cheques are not scrutinised at all for the correct signature but a
>> high value cheque like yours probably warranted a closer look.
>>
>> If it was me, I would contact my bank and berate them for not realising
>> that a signature changes with time and for not contacting me before
>> declining to honour the cheque.
> If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret that
> as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed under
> duress.
Even sillier than you usually manage.
> "pamela" <inv...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:XnsA55EDE1...@216.151.153.55...
>> On 18:41 26 Nov 2015, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
>>
>>> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
>>> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
>>> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
>>> cheque had been written by me.
>>>
>>> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
>>> certainly not for this reason.
>>>
>>
>> Most cheques are not scrutinised at all for the correct signature but a
>> high value cheque like yours probably warranted a closer look.
>>
>> If it was me, I would contact my bank and berate them for not realising
>> that a signature changes with time and for not contacting me before
>> declining to honour the cheque.
> If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret that
> as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed under
> duress.
If it was signed under duress, why would the person under duress
sign it anything like they normally sign it ? And if there was something
else with their signature already on it, it would make no sense to
deliberately try to make it different enough for the bank to notice
but not those holding a gun to the signer's head etc.
And I just don’t believe that any real crim would ever get
someone to sign a cheque under duress anyway, because
they could just call the bank and tell them to stop the
cheque when the crims had gone off with the cheque.
> Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put them under even
> more duress to give correct answers to security questions over the phone.
when the cheque is getting process by the bank.
You're completely off with the fucking fairys, again.
News
Nov 27, 2015, 2:28:09 AM11/27/15
to
In message <n37vn1$6tr$1...@dont-email.me>, michael adams
<mjad...@onetel.net> writes
phoned a while ago from some chap claiming to be from Visa, regarding a
query on my account. He immediately launched into the security bit to
verify I was who I said I was. At that point, I said hold on, you're
phoning me, I'm not phoning you. How do I know you are from Visa? I
asked him to confirm the last transaction on my account. He refused,
and insisted I answer his questions. I refused, and told him Visa had
my postal address and e-mail address, and suggested he use those. I
still don't know what the call was about, or whether it was genuine.
--
Graeme
<mjad...@onetel.net> writes
>
>If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret
>that as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed
>under duress. Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put them
>under even more duress to give correct answers to security questions
>over the phone.
This can create a Catch 22 situation, at least in this house. I was
>If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret
>that as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed
>under duress. Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put them
>under even more duress to give correct answers to security questions
>over the phone.
phoned a while ago from some chap claiming to be from Visa, regarding a
query on my account. He immediately launched into the security bit to
verify I was who I said I was. At that point, I said hold on, you're
phoning me, I'm not phoning you. How do I know you are from Visa? I
asked him to confirm the last transaction on my account. He refused,
and insisted I answer his questions. I refused, and told him Visa had
my postal address and e-mail address, and suggested he use those. I
still don't know what the call was about, or whether it was genuine.
--
Graeme
F Murtz
Nov 27, 2015, 3:12:19 AM11/27/15
to
Jonno wrote:
> michael adams scribbled
> No bank will ask security questions over the phone. As for keeping
> someone under duress while a cheque clears...
>
They will if you are the one ringing them.
> michael adams scribbled
> someone under duress while a cheque clears...
>
They will if you are the one ringing them.
Tim Watts
Nov 27, 2015, 3:43:41 AM11/27/15
to
I've had calls from a couple of banks (RBS Credit card and Nationwide)
and in both cases, I said: sorry - I don't know who you are.
They said: phone the number on the back of your card, and (depending on
bank) give this reference, or just say you were called - the record of
why we want to talk to you is on the computer.
Which is the correct approach :)
Martin Brown
Nov 27, 2015, 4:00:28 AM11/27/15
to
On 27/11/2015 07:27, News wrote:
> In message <n37vn1$6tr$1...@dont-email.me>, michael adams
> <mjad...@onetel.net> writes
>>
>> If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret
>> that as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed
>> under duress. Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put
>> them
>> under even more duress to give correct answers to security questions
>> over the phone.
>
> This can create a Catch 22 situation, at least in this house. I was
> phoned a while ago from some chap claiming to be from Visa, regarding a
> query on my account. He immediately launched into the security bit to
> verify I was who I said I was. At that point, I said hold on, you're
> phoning me, I'm not phoning you. How do I know you are from Visa? I
It wasn't genuine unless either you were late making a payment in which
> In message <n37vn1$6tr$1...@dont-email.me>, michael adams
> <mjad...@onetel.net> writes
>>
>> If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret
>> that as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed
>> under duress. Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put
>> them
>> under even more duress to give correct answers to security questions
>> over the phone.
>
> This can create a Catch 22 situation, at least in this house. I was
> phoned a while ago from some chap claiming to be from Visa, regarding a
> query on my account. He immediately launched into the security bit to
> verify I was who I said I was. At that point, I said hold on, you're
> phoning me, I'm not phoning you. How do I know you are from Visa? I
case they will cold call like that and look for all the world like a
vishing attack or your card has been compromised where they will ring
back after a supervisor has agreed how to prove they are genuine.
> asked him to confirm the last transaction on my account. He refused,
> and insisted I answer his questions. I refused, and told him Visa had
> my postal address and e-mail address, and suggested he use those. I
> still don't know what the call was about, or whether it was genuine.
card confirm the first line of my address and we deadlock. If it is
important they can either put it in writing or ring me back when they
have worked out how to prove to me they are really genuine. The script
droids always sound really hurt when I tell them I don't trust them.
Heaven help the average punter.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Allan
Nov 27, 2015, 4:03:57 AM11/27/15
to
On 27/11/2015 08:43, Tim Watts wrote:
> On 27/11/15 07:27, News wrote:
[snip]
> On 27/11/15 07:27, News wrote:
> They said: phone the number on the back of your card, and (depending on
> bank) give this reference, or just say you were called - the record of
> why we want to talk to you is on the computer.
>
> Which is the correct approach :)
a dial tone first. There is a scam doing the rounds where the scammer
calls, tells you to call the bank back, you hang up, he doesn't, the
line is still open, you think you've dialled the bank, but you''re still
talking to the same scammer....
Chris J Dixon
Nov 27, 2015, 4:12:57 AM11/27/15
to
Martin Brown wrote:
>I always insist that cold callers purporting to be my bank or credit
>card confirm the first line of my address and we deadlock
Most of my cold callers already know it, though I refuse to
>I always insist that cold callers purporting to be my bank or credit
>card confirm the first line of my address and we deadlock
acknowledge that any of the details they quote are accurate.
Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
ch...@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
Tim Watts
Nov 27, 2015, 4:15:47 AM11/27/15
to
pull on mobiles, so perhaps the motto is: call back on your mobile?
Or ring the speaking clock (does that still exist?) first to prove the
line is clear.
Martin Brown
Nov 27, 2015, 4:31:18 AM11/27/15
to
On 27/11/2015 08:43, Tim Watts wrote:
> On 27/11/15 07:27, News wrote:
>> In message <n37vn1$6tr$1...@dont-email.me>, michael adams
>> <mjad...@onetel.net> writes
>>>
>>> If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret
>>> that as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed
>>> under duress. Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put
>>> them
>>> under even more duress to give correct answers to security questions
>>> over the phone.
>>
>> This can create a Catch 22 situation, at least in this house. I was
>> phoned a while ago from some chap claiming to be from Visa, regarding a
>> query on my account. He immediately launched into the security bit to
>> verify I was who I said I was. At that point, I said hold on, you're
>> phoning me, I'm not phoning you. How do I know you are from Visa? I
>> asked him to confirm the last transaction on my account. He refused,
>> and insisted I answer his questions. I refused, and told him Visa had
>> my postal address and e-mail address, and suggested he use those. I
>> still don't know what the call was about, or whether it was genuine.
>
> He was indeed an amateur then.
Most of the sales droids are. Their script doesn't cater at all for
>> In message <n37vn1$6tr$1...@dont-email.me>, michael adams
>> <mjad...@onetel.net> writes
>>>
>>> If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret
>>> that as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed
>>> under duress. Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put
>>> them
>>> under even more duress to give correct answers to security questions
>>> over the phone.
>>
>> This can create a Catch 22 situation, at least in this house. I was
>> phoned a while ago from some chap claiming to be from Visa, regarding a
>> query on my account. He immediately launched into the security bit to
>> verify I was who I said I was. At that point, I said hold on, you're
>> phoning me, I'm not phoning you. How do I know you are from Visa? I
>> asked him to confirm the last transaction on my account. He refused,
>> and insisted I answer his questions. I refused, and told him Visa had
>> my postal address and e-mail address, and suggested he use those. I
>> still don't know what the call was about, or whether it was genuine.
>
> He was indeed an amateur then.
people who have been trained to resist social engineering attacks.
> I've had calls from a couple of banks (RBS Credit card and Nationwide)
> and in both cases, I said: sorry - I don't know who you are.
>
> They said: phone the number on the back of your card, and (depending on
> bank) give this reference, or just say you were called - the record of
> why we want to talk to you is on the computer.
>
> Which is the correct approach :)
They then keep the line open and play dial tone to you. You must dial
some other number to confirm that your phone line isn't compromised!
Or use another phone entirely.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Rod Speed
Nov 27, 2015, 4:32:40 AM11/27/15
to
"Jonno" <m...@privacy.nob> wrote in message
news:MPG.30c21d548...@127.0.0.1...
> michael adams scribbled
Mine did. When they called me trying to flog me some shit
in an attempt to check that it was me they were talking to.
Management couldn't even see the problem with that approach when
I rubbed their nose in the stupidity of what they were doing either
> As for keeping someone under duress while a cheque clears...
Martin Brown
Nov 27, 2015, 4:41:26 AM11/27/15
to
On 27/11/2015 07:57, Jonno wrote:
> michael adams scribbled
>
>>
> michael adams scribbled
>
>>
> someone under duress while a cheque clears...
Yeah right. Have you ever tried to do a large transaction in person paid
with Barclaycard where the merchant has to ask you the droids computer
chosen security questions - we have had some totally unanswerable ones
and the large purchase was the final pre-install payment of a fitted
kitchen at the card holders address.
They included:
Q: Name a street connected to your street?
A: They didn't like A19 as an answer (no street names here)
Q: Name the hotel where you stayed in Chester last year?
A: We didn't stay in Chester last year.
Digging out the statements we found the correct answer to the second
question was after the works Xmas do at "Lumley Castle, County Durham"
in Chester *LE STREET* my emphasis - a hell of a long way from Chester!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
tabb...@gmail.com
Nov 27, 2015, 4:54:51 AM11/27/15
to
On Friday, 27 November 2015 09:32:40 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
> "Jonno" <m...@privacy.nob> wrote in message
> news:MPG.30c21d548...@127.0.0.1...
> "Jonno" <m...@privacy.nob> wrote in message
> news:MPG.30c21d548...@127.0.0.1...
> > No bank will ask security questions over the phone.
>
> Mine did. When they called me trying to flog me some shit
> in an attempt to check that it was me they were talking to.
>
> Management couldn't even see the problem with that approach when
I've had the same experience. Shocking absence of even basic security
>
> Mine did. When they called me trying to flog me some shit
> in an attempt to check that it was me they were talking to.
>
> Management couldn't even see the problem with that approach when
NT
michael adams
Nov 27, 2015, 5:01:07 AM11/27/15
to
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dbpgb6...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net> wrote in message
> news:n37vn1$6tr$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "pamela" <inv...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:XnsA55EDE1...@216.151.153.55...
>>> On 18:41 26 Nov 2015, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
>>>> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
>>>> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
>>>> cheque had been written by me.
>>>>
>>>> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
>>>> certainly not for this reason.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Most cheques are not scrutinised at all for the correct signature but a
>>> high value cheque like yours probably warranted a closer look.
>>>
>>> If it was me, I would contact my bank and berate them for not realising
>>> that a signature changes with time and for not contacting me before
>>> declining to honour the cheque.
>
>> If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret that as it being
>> poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed under duress.
>
> Even sillier than you usually manage.
>
> If it was signed under duress, why would the person under duress
> sign it anything like they normally sign it ?
They didn't.
>
> "michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net> wrote in message
> news:n37vn1$6tr$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "pamela" <inv...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:XnsA55EDE1...@216.151.153.55...
>>> On 18:41 26 Nov 2015, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
>>>> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
>>>> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
>>>> cheque had been written by me.
>>>>
>>>> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
>>>> certainly not for this reason.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Most cheques are not scrutinised at all for the correct signature but a
>>> high value cheque like yours probably warranted a closer look.
>>>
>>> If it was me, I would contact my bank and berate them for not realising
>>> that a signature changes with time and for not contacting me before
>>> declining to honour the cheque.
>
>> If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret that as it being
>> poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed under duress.
>
> Even sillier than you usually manage.
>
> If it was signed under duress, why would the person under duress
> sign it anything like they normally sign it ?
Which happens to be the whole point of the thread, in case you hadn't
noticed.
Next !!!
michael adams
...
michael adams
Nov 27, 2015, 5:03:06 AM11/27/15
to
"Jonno" <m...@privacy.nob> wrote in message news:MPG.30c21d548...@127.0.0.1...
> No bank will ask security questions over the phone. As for keeping
> someone under duress while a cheque clears...
If they had sufficient bank accounts to make it worthwhile, why not ?
> someone under duress while a cheque clears...
After all, if they lived in Midsomer or maybe Oxford, they'd simply
whack them over the head afterwards, and maybe bury them in the
garden. In fact if they were really clever, like all the tv murderers
are, they'd get them to sign a series of post dated cheques going into
the future; so as to disguise the actual date of the murder.
michael adams
...
>
Rod Speed
Nov 27, 2015, 5:11:12 AM11/27/15
to
news:n399gi$r9a$1...@dont-email.me...
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
Rod Speed
Nov 27, 2015, 5:13:52 AM11/27/15
to
news:n399k5$roo$1...@dont-email.me...
Because it dramatically increases the risk of getting caught doing that,
stupid.
> After all, if they lived in Midsomer or maybe Oxford, they'd simply whack
> them over the head afterwards, and maybe bury them in the garden.
Corse no one would ever notice that happening, eh ?
> In fact if they were really clever, like all the tv murderers are, they'd
> get them to sign a series of post dated cheques going into the future; so
> as to disguise the actual date of the murder.
Like I said, completely off with the fucking fairys, as always.
stupid.
> After all, if they lived in Midsomer or maybe Oxford, they'd simply whack
> them over the head afterwards, and maybe bury them in the garden.
> In fact if they were really clever, like all the tv murderers are, they'd
> get them to sign a series of post dated cheques going into the future; so
> as to disguise the actual date of the murder.
fred
Nov 27, 2015, 5:27:09 AM11/27/15
to
On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 6:41:47 PM UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
> cheque had been written by me.
>
> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
> certainly not for this reason.
>
Did they charge you for the privilege ?
> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
> cheque had been written by me.
>
> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
> certainly not for this reason.
>
Harry Bloomfield
Nov 27, 2015, 5:42:00 AM11/27/15
to
Brian-Gaff explained :
cheque did not match the one they had on file for me, hence the
rejection. This morning I received a letter from my bank which said it
had been rejected because they did not actually have a copy of my
signature on file at all. Curious and curiouser.
Maybe they didn't have a file copy to compare it against, but I have
sent them numerous documents recently which bore my signature.
> No sounds a bit worrying as a person who cannot see, I often get trusted
> people to write mine and then sign them. I doubt very much if my signature
> would be much like my original one now.
> Brian
In the phone call I made to my bank, they said the signature on the
> people to write mine and then sign them. I doubt very much if my signature
> would be much like my original one now.
> Brian
cheque did not match the one they had on file for me, hence the
rejection. This morning I received a letter from my bank which said it
had been rejected because they did not actually have a copy of my
signature on file at all. Curious and curiouser.
Maybe they didn't have a file copy to compare it against, but I have
sent them numerous documents recently which bore my signature.
Harry Bloomfield
Nov 27, 2015, 5:48:50 AM11/27/15
to
Allan pretended :
No point in relying on the dial tone, the scammers now can simulate
that too. Use another phone to ring the bank back, or wait a while and
phone a friend to ensure they have cleared off the line, then your
bank.
that too. Use another phone to ring the bank back, or wait a while and
phone a friend to ensure they have cleared off the line, then your
bank.
Harry Bloomfield
Nov 27, 2015, 5:54:37 AM11/27/15
to
It happens that fred formulated :
No indication of any such charge yet from my account. If they try, I
will be straight on the phone threatening to take my accounts
elsewhere.
will be straight on the phone threatening to take my accounts
elsewhere.
Martin Brown
Nov 27, 2015, 6:34:24 AM11/27/15
to
On 27/11/2015 10:54, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> It happens that fred formulated :
>> On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 6:41:47 PM UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
>>> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
>>> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an
>>> odd thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether
>>> the cheque had been written by me.
>>>
>>> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
>>> certainly not for this reason.
>>
> It happens that fred formulated :
>> On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 6:41:47 PM UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
>>> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
>>> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an
>>> odd thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether
>>> the cheque had been written by me.
>>>
>>> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
>>> certainly not for this reason.
>>
>> Did they charge you for the privilege ?
>
> No indication of any such charge yet from my account. If they try, I
> will be straight on the phone threatening to take my accounts elsewhere.
They will charge whoever presented the cheque in payment a fee ISTR £12.
>
> No indication of any such charge yet from my account. If they try, I
> will be straight on the phone threatening to take my accounts elsewhere.
(or something like that maybe bank dependent)
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
F
Nov 27, 2015, 6:49:52 AM11/27/15
to
On 27/11/2015 09:00, Martin Brown wrote:
> I always insist that cold callers purporting to be my bank or credit
> card confirm the first line of my address and we deadlock.
My bank has recently taken to informing me of the month of my birth and
> I always insist that cold callers purporting to be my bank or credit
> card confirm the first line of my address and we deadlock.
then asking me for day and year. Not wholly secure, but better than nothing.
--
F
michael adams
Nov 27, 2015, 8:53:25 AM11/27/15
to
"F" <news@nowhere> wrote in message
news:mY2dnaCsLsfD3sXL...@brightview.co.uk...
has a one in twelve chance of being correct. As against a one in
365 chance of guessing the right day; and say a one in 70 chance
of guessing the right year.
Then on the one in twelve ocassions on which the fraudster
guesses the right month, the customer kindly provides him with
the one in 365 day, and the one in 70 year of his birth.
Presumably the numpty who dreamt that one up got a bonus for
their pains.
michael adams
...
>
>
whisky-dave
Nov 27, 2015, 8:58:52 AM11/27/15
to
On Thursday, 26 November 2015 20:55:18 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
I tried on-line banking last night but I can't pay a person more than £5k, so saturday morning i have to take my passport to the bank (santander).
> On 26/11/2015 18:41, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
>
> > I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
> > signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
> > thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
> > cheque had been written by me.
>
> That is how they do it though. Use other means of payment instead.
>
> > I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
> > signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
> > thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
> > cheque had been written by me.
>
I tried on-line banking last night but I can't pay a person more than £5k, so saturday morning i have to take my passport to the bank (santander).
Martin Brown
Nov 27, 2015, 11:50:47 AM11/27/15
to
single transaction. They also warn you now about classic vishing scams
if you appear to be moving a large sum to a new account.
Nationwide will let you do up to £10k per transaction and as many
transactions as you like provided the balance is up to taking the hit.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Bob Eager
Nov 27, 2015, 1:33:50 PM11/27/15
to
(and speak to her) first.
I can just use a different phone - they are all VoIP.
Rod Speed
Nov 27, 2015, 1:39:36 PM11/27/15
to
"F" <news@nowhere> wrote in message
news:mY2dnaCsLsfD3sXL...@brightview.co.uk...
Albert Zweistein
Nov 27, 2015, 1:50:09 PM11/27/15
to
On 26/11/2015 21:57, Jonno wrote:
> pamela scribbled
>
>>
>> On 20:57 26 Nov 2015, Jonno wrote:
>>
>>> Harry Bloomfield scribbled
>>> to stop us using cheques.
>>>
>>
>> Yes Jonno. I'm sure it is. Exactly that.
>>
>> Paranoia much?
>
>
> You've certainly got issues. Have you seen the quack yet? I read
> you've been seeing things. Any excuse not to use flour is it?
>
> As for cheques, the banks don't want us to use them. They tried to
> phase them out a couple of years ago. You were probably having a hot
> flush when that was in the headlines.
>
> http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05318
>
> Now piss off and learn how a duster and vacuum cleaner work.
>
>
Pamela really gets to you huh Jonno. God I hope that guy by the bush
outside my window isn't from my bank checking to see if I'm writing a
cheque.
> pamela scribbled
>
>>
>> On 20:57 26 Nov 2015, Jonno wrote:
>>
>>> Harry Bloomfield scribbled
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
>>>> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
>>>> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
>>>> cheque had been written by me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
>>>> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
>>>> thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
>>>> cheque had been written by me.
>>>>
>>>> Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
>>>> certainly not for this reason.
>>>
>>>
>>> Lloyds bank by any chance? I had the same 2 weeks ago. It's an attempt
>>>> certainly not for this reason.
>>>
>>>
>>> to stop us using cheques.
>>>
>>
>> Yes Jonno. I'm sure it is. Exactly that.
>>
>> Paranoia much?
>
>
> You've certainly got issues. Have you seen the quack yet? I read
> you've been seeing things. Any excuse not to use flour is it?
>
> As for cheques, the banks don't want us to use them. They tried to
> phase them out a couple of years ago. You were probably having a hot
> flush when that was in the headlines.
>
> http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05318
>
> Now piss off and learn how a duster and vacuum cleaner work.
>
>
Pamela really gets to you huh Jonno. God I hope that guy by the bush
outside my window isn't from my bank checking to see if I'm writing a
cheque.
Cursitor Doom
Nov 27, 2015, 8:24:22 PM11/27/15
to
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 20:57:38 +0000, Jonno wrote:
> Lloyds bank by any chance? I had the same 2 weeks ago. It's an attempt
> to stop us using cheques.
They don't want us using cash, either! What bloody use are they these
> Lloyds bank by any chance? I had the same 2 weeks ago. It's an attempt
> to stop us using cheques.
days?
Cursitor Doom
Nov 27, 2015, 8:32:03 PM11/27/15
to
banks around nowadays that if they lose your account, some other poor sod
pissed off with their own useless bank will open up a new account with
them. You can't win.
Rod Speed
Nov 27, 2015, 10:55:20 PM11/27/15
to
whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote
> Martin Brown wrote
On the odd occasion that I have need to do that, I just split the payment
into two.
Not necessarily that viable with business transactions
tho when the other end is automated etc.
> so saturday morning i have to take my passport to the bank (santander).
We have to do that stuff when opening the account,
so don't need to do that to use online banking.
> Martin Brown wrote
>> Harry Bloomfield wrote
>>> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
>>> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an
>>> odd thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether
>>> the cheque had been written by me.
>> That is how they do it though. Use other means of payment instead.
> I tried on-line banking last night but I can't pay a person more than £5k,
How often do you want to do that ?
>>> I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
>>> signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an
>>> odd thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether
>>> the cheque had been written by me.
>> That is how they do it though. Use other means of payment instead.
> I tried on-line banking last night but I can't pay a person more than £5k,
On the odd occasion that I have need to do that, I just split the payment
into two.
Not necessarily that viable with business transactions
tho when the other end is automated etc.
> so saturday morning i have to take my passport to the bank (santander).
so don't need to do that to use online banking.
0 new messages