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. ;-)
Tim
I have a couple of times with LLoyds. One time I stormed into my branch 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.
Wasn't Lloyds, was it? I gather they're having some liquidity issues at 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 s*1t, even though they deduct 20 notes a month for the privilege.
Cursitor Doom laid this down on his screen :
No, TSB.
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
That is how they do it though. Use other means of payment instead.
It is above the checking before clearing threshold and your signature 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.
Harry Bloomfield scribbled
Lloyds bank by any chance? I had the same 2 weeks ago. It's an attempt to stop us using cheques.
Yes Jonno. I'm sure it is. Exactly that.
Paranoia much?
Not if you were away on holiday, and the person who stole your chequebook might also have had access to your phone. Or had also stolen your mobile, if appropriate.
I print all mine out, although only for a small number of regular payees with their own templates. The signature is a picture file, and so identical every time
michael adams
...
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. At the same time, I would thank them for being vigilant and looking out for any fraudulent activity on my account.
You and the payee may now incur fees for handling a bounced cheque and (provided I hadn't changed my signature out of all recognition) I would look to my bank to meet all such charges arising from their mishandling.
If you are on a roll with them you could ask for any consequential loss to be met and request a good will payment, say ?30, for the unnecessary distress and inconvenience. Stay polite throughout as these are not mandatory payments and if they take a dislike to you they may not offer anything.
pamela scribbled
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.
Now piss off and learn how a duster and vacuum cleaner work.
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
...
In message , michael adams writes
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.
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.
He was indeed an amateur then.
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 :)
It wasn't genuine unless either you were late making a payment in which 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.
I always insist that cold callers purporting to be my bank or credit 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.
If ringing the bank back, when you pick the phone up, make sure you hear 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....
Most of my cold callers already know it, though I refuse to acknowledge that any of the details they quote are accurate.
Chris
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.