# Bank tried to stop me lodging a sole payee cheque to a joint account



## Daisy2012 (8 Aug 2011)

Following on from a previous thread where BOI required Mr Daisy2012's signature as endorsement on a cheque being lodged by my niece (and then by me) made out to Mr Daisy2012 into our joint account, I've just had BOI Global Markets do something similar. 

Short version, I've been lodging cheques for me or my husband into our joint account for donkeys, and have never had to endorse the cheque. My niece went to lodge a cheque for 10K into our joint account and they refused to take it without his signature on the back. She then went to another bank and wrote my name and phone number on the express lodgement slip and dropped it in. The bank then rang me and said they couldn't accept it without his signature on it. When pressed as to why, they said that I could be lodging it to then withdraw it without his knowledge. Aha, said I, what about the other 50K in the account? Couldn't he have that instead. I told them we had left the country and couldn't sign it now. He was luckily too thick to wonder why he had called me on an Irish landline a couple of hours later... cheque was lodged.

Now BOI GM accept my instruction to transfer from our USD account, and then secretly ring Mr Daisy2012 to ask is that OK. This has also never happened before and we've done it loads of times. 

Leads me to wonder who managed to sting BOI for how much by doing something like this, or is it just something for them to do when they mustn't have much else to be doing? Any ideas?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Aug 2011)

This is very confusing. 

What is your niece's role? Is she just the messenger or is the joint account between you and your niece? 

If you have a joint account with you and your niece, only a cheque made payable to you or your niece should be lodged to it without endorsement. 

If a cheque made payable to your husband was lodged to that account, the bank is well withing its rights not to lodge the cheque to that account. If they do so, they are doing it for your convenience. Your husband could come along later and say that the bank gave you credit for the cheque in error. They would have to refund him the money and debit it from your account. 

The bank can't win with customers like you. If they abide by the rules you call them difficult and thick. If they lodge the cheque you call them thick for taking the risk. 


Brendan


----------



## PolkaDot (9 Aug 2011)

I wish some people would re-read their posts before submitting them to see if they make any sense!


----------



## Daisy2012 (9 Aug 2011)

Well thanks very much to you too for your kind words. I'm perfectly well aware of what the rules are and yes, they are thick. Thick and ignorant.

Cheque made out to Mr Daisy2012 being lodged into account in the joint names of Mr Daisy2012 and Ms Daisy2012. Niece is merely the person bringing the cheque into the bank. There is absolutely no reason why the cheque should be endorsed.

The bank refused to lodge the cheque to Mr Daisy2012's joint account (in the name of Mr Daisy2012 and Ms Daisy2012) without his (Mr Daisy2012's) endorsement on the back of it.

She subsequently lodged it in a different bank in the express lodgement and wrote the name of person lodging it as me, Ms Daisy2012, to be lodged to the account in the name of Mr Daisy2012 and Ms Daisy2012. The bank then rang me up and said they would not accept the cheque without Mr Daisy2012's signature on the back as endorsement into the account in the name of Mr Daisy2012 and Ms Daisy2012.

The bank clerk gave the reason why the cheque had to be endorsed as it might be possible for me (Ms Daisy2012) to lodge and cash the cheque without his (Mr Daisy2012's) knowledge. As we have a joint account (that is Mr Daisy2012 and I, Ms Daisy2012) in which there is currently about 50K and this cheque was for just under 10K, I told him this was absolutely bizarre. It is bizarre and thick. 

It is equally thick of them to not have the common courtesy to tell me that in this particular instance, due to some form of security requirement, that they would be ringing Mr Daisy2012 to ask him was he OK with transferring money from one of our joint accounts (in the name of Mr Daisy2012 and Ms Daisy2012 before Brendan gets his knickers in a twist again) to another of our joint accounts (also in the name of Mr Daisy2012 and Ms Daisy2012).

My question remains: Who has managed to sting BOI for something like this - is it even possible?

These are NOT the rules - I abide by the rules and pay the fees and do not expect to be treated, after more than 30 years banking with these eejits, like some form of criminal.


----------



## Padraigb (9 Aug 2011)

Daisy2012 said:


> ... There is absolutely no reason why the cheque should be endorsed....



Yes there is, and you had it explained to you in a different thread.


----------



## Daisy2012 (9 Aug 2011)

No pet, I didn't. Your last comment was some weird... comment when I asked you precisely which part of the law stated that a cheque had to be endorsed by the person to whom the cheque is made out when the cheque is being paid into a joint account by the other named party on the same joint account. 

As Brendan so kindly pointed out above: 
_If you have a joint account with you and your niece, only a cheque made  payable to you or your niece should be lodged to it without endorsement.  
_ 
Anyhow, my question was not whether or not the cheque should be lodged without endorsement, it was has BOI been stung recently by someone in this manner.


----------



## Leo (9 Aug 2011)

Daisy2012 said:


> My question remains: Who has managed to sting BOI for something like this


 
Why don't you ask BOI? No one here is going to be able to answer that question. BOI won't answer you either though.


----------



## Gulliver (11 Aug 2011)

I have not looked at the previous thread on this, but let me make a comment or two on the current thread. Much of it seems to relate to how a bank accepts cheques for payment into an account, whether joint or otherwise... and what endorsements it requires.

Irish legislation in relation to cheques derives mainly from a couple of pieces of 19th century legislation (and a very minor 20th century piece). The legislation is enabling legislation rather than enforcing legislation - it permits certain things rather than specifying how they should be done. This is in contrast to the recent Payment Services Regulations, which are enforcing, but specificaly exempt cheques from their ambit.

The result is that the law in relation to cheques is governed by precedent and practice. In regard to practice, the general position is that if banks make rules and they are accepted by customers, then, unless they are challenged in court, such rules become practice. 
Over the past few years, there has been a very large number of such changes, so that the practice in each bank is significantly different. An example of such difference is that some banks faced with a decision on whether to bounce a cheque, hold it until the next day, but at least one bank will bounce it on the day it is presented through the clearing. I have encountered quite a number of differences in practice even between different branches of the same bank. There is little that you can do to challenge such changes. A court challenge would be only worthwhile if such practice had resulted in a significant loss to you - even then, the bank would likely respond that the change had been necessary to reduce some risk to them.

Banks will, I believe, continue to introduce more and more risk-related changes of rules, until the cheque becomes more trouble than it is worth. This may well coincide with the banks' wish to get rid of cheques entirely in order to cut costs, but is in fact a recognition that a cheque is a high-risk instrument which is entirely unsuited to circumstances of economic uncertainty.

On the specific point of presenting the cheque through another branch rather than the account-holding branch, such a transaction can, for many purposes, be technically considered as two separate transactions - the encashment of the cheque, and the lodgement of cash, and so it is likely that bank rules are even more stringent for that transaction, than for a direct lodgment at the account-holding branch.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Aug 2011)

Gulliver

Thanks for that. It certainly clears up the principles very well. 

So in the present case, it seems that the bank is well within its rights to make a rule to accept only a cheque endorsed by the payee. 

I suspect that the bank has been challenged by a joint account holder claiming that they lodged an unendorsed cheque to their joint account and that the other account holder withdrew the money.

I doubt if the person succeeded in the case, but they probably took up a lot of banking time. 

Brendan


----------



## csirl (11 Aug 2011)

I bank with BOI and have a joint account with my wife. I've often lodged cheques made out to either or both of us and never ever been asked to endorse. When I'm in a hurry, I put them in the express lodgement box, or in one of those newish ATM style machines where you can lodge cheques/cash. Never had a difficulty. 

Is there any chance that this is related to anti-money laundering rules rather than cheque rules? 10k would be above the limits for reportable amounts?


----------



## Daisy2012 (11 Aug 2011)

Thanks Gulliver for the explanation and I would agree with your analysis, Brendan. But does the bank not have to publish the rule somewhere? i.e. for a customer to know that they have to endorse a cheque before lodging it into their own account, surely they need to be informed of that? And is it not absolutely daft?


----------



## orka (11 Aug 2011)

Daisy2012 said:


> Thanks Gulliver for the explanation and I would agree with your analysis, Brendan. But does the bank not have to publish the rule somewhere? i.e. for a customer to know that they have to endorse a cheque before lodging it into their own account, surely they need to be informed of that? And is it not absolutely daft?


It only seems daft to you because you have always operated a different way and were happy to do so.  We're the same as you - we happily lodged unendorsed cheques to our joint (and only) account for years but in the past year or so, NIB have looked for cheques to be endorsed.  However, I can understand it - if you look around on AAM, you will see that many people have an account each plus a joint account - the joint account being for household bills etc.  If that's the way a couple operate, you can understand how one of them might be annoyed if a personal cheque was lodged to the joint account thereby giving the other person access to it - having a joint account doesn't give you dominion over all the other person's money.  Now imagine a his, hers and joint situation where the couple are splitting up or have already split up and maintain a joint account for paying household bills, mortgage etc. - messy situation waiting to happen if the bank allow unendorsed cheques to be lodged to the joint account.


----------



## TarfHead (11 Aug 2011)

orka said:


> having a joint account doesn't give you dominion over all the other person's money.


 
I disagree. If the account is Repayable to Either, then there is no 'your money/my money' distinction. For example, my wife and I have a joint account to which I have access using online banking. I could transfer all funds out of the joint account to my sole account, or to a third-party account, without the bank or my wife intervening to stop me.

On a related point, the local branch of my bank no longer allow me to split a lodgment, i.e. one cheque lodged to 2 different accounts (e.g. 60% to account A and 40% to account B). I had no objection to this practice until recently. So a bank's policies are not set for all time - they change. It could be that a copy of same is available in-branch for customer inspection and reference. The OP did not say if they had asked to see same.

IMHO, referrring to such practices as 'thick' and that bank staff 'must not have much else to be doing', is unhelpful.


----------



## orka (11 Aug 2011)

orka said:


> - having a joint account doesn't give you dominion over all the other person's money.





TarfHead said:


> I disagree. If the account is Repayable to Either, then there is no 'your money/my money' distinction.


I wasn't referring to the money in the joint account but to 'all the other person's money'. A joint account gives you total control over the money in the joint account but not over all the other person's money. You couldn't access your wife's sole account any more than the bank should let you lodge to your joint account an unendorsed cheque in her name.


----------



## Daisy2012 (11 Aug 2011)

orka said:


> Now imagine a his, hers and joint situation where the couple are splitting up or have already split up and maintain a joint account for paying household bills, mortgage etc. - messy situation waiting to happen if the bank allow unendorsed cheques to be lodged to the joint account.



To be honest orka, when the account has 5 times as much money in it as is being lodged, I can't see where the problem is. If the money is lodged to the joint account (the one for paying bills) then either of the other two parties can move it out again. 

The bank has been "allowing" me to lodge unendorsed cheques for years and to me, it's daft. Primarily because they don't require any endorsement to move money out of the account... 

@Tarfhead, yes it probably isn't really helpful but to be honest with you I am so fed up with banks at the moment. Not just Irish ones, French ones as well. I've spent something like 12 hours over the past two weeks trying to get various different things done. Simple things like getting a cheque lodged, finding out why AIB is charging my merchant account 4 fees for one transaction, getting a new bank card because some ditz cancelled the old one for some unknown reason, etc etc etc. My level of frustration with banks as a whole is just through the roof. I'll refrain from venting on a public forum in the future and ask them for a printed copy of their terms and conditions. 

I have also been doing this for years, all of my married life in fact (20 years). The cheque was actually from Revenue and I have lodged cheques for much more than 10K without having to have them endorsed. One just a few months ago.


----------



## orka (11 Aug 2011)

Daisy2012 said:


> If the money is lodged to the joint account (the one for paying bills) then either of the other two parties can move it out again.


Yes, if they know it’s there: separated couple, joint account for paying bills, revenue refund arrives in the post for A (who hasn’t changed official address yet), lodged by B unknown to A and then withdrawn by B before A realises = manure business for bank.



Daisy2012 said:


> The bank has been "allowing" me to lodge unendorsed cheques for years and to me, it's daft. Primarily because they don't require any endorsement to move money out of the account...


I am struggling to understand how you can’t see the difference here.  Your husband has consented to you having access to every cent in the joint account so the bank has no liability if they pay it all out to you.  When a cheque arrives for your husband, this is new money, his and his only – until he consents to let you have access to it by endorsing the cheque/lodging it to the account.  The bank can’t know the state of your relationship with your husband day after day so they can’t assume that he’s okay with giving you access to his new money – until they see his signature on the cheque.





Daisy2012 said:


> To be honest orka, when the account has 5 times as much money in it as is being lodged, I can't see where the problem is.


I’m sure with over 99% of bank transactions, there won’t be a problem but that doesn’t mean the bank doesn’t have a duty of care which means that looking after the 1% means inconveniencing the 99%.  The rule has to be clear and unambiguous – not, “sure if you’ve done it before and there’s plenty of money in the account, what’s the harm... “.  And if 5x is okay, what about if there’s 3x the cheque amount – or 2x – where do you draw the line?  And there could be 10x in the account because the separating couple are about to pay off a loan.



Daisy2012 said:


> My level of frustration with banks as a whole is just through the roof. I'll refrain from venting on a public forum in the future and ask them for a printed copy of their terms and conditions..


At least a few times each year, I end up spitting feathers with annoyance at my bank (can’t believe their stupidity, treatment of me etc.) – I start writing letters of complaint, make plans to move to a different bank etc.  Then I realise that they are all the same and they’ll never be anywhere near perfect and I have to work around whatever frustrations they throw my way – resistance is futile...  Sad but true.


----------



## Daisy2012 (12 Aug 2011)

orka said:


> I am struggling to understand how you can’t see the difference here.  Your husband has consented to you having access to every cent in the joint account so the bank has no liability if they pay it all out to you.  When a cheque arrives for your husband, this is new money, his and his only – until he consents to let you have access to it by endorsing the cheque/lodging it to the account.  The bank can’t know the state of your relationship with your husband day after day so they can’t assume that he’s okay with giving you access to his new money – until they see his signature on the cheque.



Orka, I can not see the difference. A joint account is set up so that both parties have equal authority and equal access both jointly and singularly on all aspects of the account. A cheque which is crossed ac payee only can only be paid into an account in the name of the payee. It's clear and unambigous to me. 

The situation that you outline of a separating couple with a joint account for paying bills ... sorry, that doesn't work for me. It's not manure for the bank, but for the idiot who didn't shut the joint account and set up a new one, and the issue is between the two parties with no liability what so ever for the bank. Zero.

I'm with you on the resistance is futile bit these days. I remember back in the early to mid-eighties having similar constant bank battles and then 20 odd years of being treated like a customer rather than some form of inconvenience or criminal as happens these days. Sad but true indeed.


----------



## Slim (12 Aug 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> This is very confusing.
> 
> What is your niece's role? Is she just the messenger or is the joint account between you and your niece?
> 
> ...


 
In fairness to the OP I thought the original post was very clear and this and subsequent posts along this line are quite discourteous.

I also think the bank(s) have taken rules to a pedantic height in order to inconvenience customers as much as possible, perhaps to force more customers down the online banking and ETF route.

Notwithstanding the explanations supplied by Gulliver et al, I cannot for the life of me think of any valid reason why a cheque made out to either Mrs. Slim or myself cannot be lodged to our joint account when submitted by either one of us or by a relative or complete stranger or posted in, with or without signature (not a good idea if posted in). Surely, the mandate of the account states how funds may be withdrawn and that remains in force. If the banks had been as pedantic about their lending policies etc etc. Slim


----------



## Gulliver (12 Aug 2011)

Folks
Go back to the fundamentals of this issue.

It relates to the legal significance of endorsement.

The purpose of endorsement was originally to facilitate a change of title (i.e. ownership) of a cheque, and that still applies. The act of lodging a sole cheque to a joint account can only be achieved by a change of title from sole to joint. If you want strict application of procedure, the banks should never have allowed lodgment of a sole cheque to a joint account without endorsement.


----------



## Daisy2012 (12 Aug 2011)

Sorry Gulliver - I don't see how there is a change of title. AC Payee only does not mean pay into an account with only the name of the payee on it. It means it must be paid into an account in the name of the payee and does not restrict that account to be in only the name of the payee. 

For example, with my business account I have two separate accounts : No 1 account and No 2 account. When I receive a cheque made out to MSDaisy2012 Ltd I am free to lodge it into MSDaisy2012 Ltd No 1 A/C or MSDaisy2012 Ltd No 2 A/C 

@Slim - they were a bit  but then again I was probably a bit discourteous myself... and I'm a big girl now...


----------



## Gulliver (12 Aug 2011)

Daisy2012 said:


> Sorry Gulliver - I don't see how there is a change of title. ...


 
If a cheque is payable to Daisy2012, then Daisy2012 has sole title to it.  If the cheque is paid into a joint account then there is a change of ownership - Daisy2012 no longer has sole title to it, or to the proceeds for as long as the funds are in the joint account.

This principle stands regardless of whether there exists a "payable to either" mandate on the account


----------



## Daisy2012 (13 Aug 2011)

Sorry to be pedantic, Gulliver, but this is really getting me. Where does it say that a cheque which is crossed a/c payee only means that the payee has sole title to the proceeds? I can not find any terms and conditions anywhere that state that lodging an a/c payee only cheque into an account in the payee's name must be endorsed by the payee if that account is a joint account. 

Is there case law, perhaps, not available to regular people?

And is the bank not required to state this in their terms and conditions?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Aug 2011)

> Where  does it say that a cheque which is crossed a/c payee only means that the  payee has sole title to the proceeds?


That is why someone puts the name of the person on a cheque. If they did not do so, then it would be in effect a bearer cheque and whoever was in possession of it, could cash it. 

I don't know if I am allowed to make out a cheque saying "Pay anyone" or "pay the bearer".  But if I say pay "Daisy 2012" then obviously only Daisy 2012 should get the money, even if John Dory finds it. 

Daisy can endorse the back of it, which makes it a bearer cheque. It can be lodged into any account. 

If I cross it "A/c payee only" then Daisy can't endorse it and must cash it herself or lodge it to her own account. Check out Wikipedia for more on crossing cheques.


----------



## Padraigb (13 Aug 2011)

Daisy2012 said:


> Sorry to be pedantic, Gulliver, but this is really getting me. Where does it say that a cheque which is crossed a/c payee only means that the payee has sole title to the proceeds? ...



By definition (Bills of Exchange Act, to which I referred you earlier) the payee of a cheque has sole title to that cheque - even if that cheque is uncrossed.

Laws are drafted for general applicability. No parliamentary draughtsman is going to insert a clause governing the circumstance of the niece of a payee attempting to lodge an unendorsed cheque to an joint account to which the payee and his spouse are parties.


----------



## Padraigb (13 Aug 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> ... I don't know if I am allowed to make out a cheque saying "Pay anyone" or "pay the bearer"....



You are. The preferred term is "bearer", which is used in the Bills of Exchange Act. "Pay cash" has the same legal effect.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Aug 2011)

Padraigb said:


> You are. The preferred term is "bearer", which is used in the Bills of Exchange Act. "Pay cash" has the same legal effect.



Thanks. Cheques have become so rare that I had forgotten people saying "Make it payable to cash". 

Brendan


----------



## Padraigb (13 Aug 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Thanks. Cheques have become so rare that I had forgotten people saying "Make it payable to cash".



So when you say "the cheque is in the post" I shouldn't hold my breath?


----------



## Daisy2012 (13 Aug 2011)

Cheques are becoming rarer and rarer and this is why this still does not make sense to me. 

The payee on the cheque has sole title of the cheque (absolutely accepted) and it can only be lodged into an account in the name of the payee. If there is an additional name on the account that is irrelevant to the title of the cheque. 

That just means that the payee has given full access to the funds in that account to the joint account holder. It in no way obfuscates or changes the title of the cheque. 

Whether it's my niece or anyone else lodging the cheque is also irrelevant. The cheque in the name of the payee is being lodged into an account in the name of the payee. It is and should be irrelevant who actually puts the thing into an envelope and hands it into the bank. I have, by the way, checked out wikipedia and googled like mad and gone through all sorts of documents. And I can't find anywhere other than a few threads like this on the odd forum in Ireland (not anywhere else) where someone has had the same issue as I.

I guess nobody is going to be able to convince me... so probably time to quit on this.


----------



## Padraigb (13 Aug 2011)

Daisy2012 said:


> ... I guess nobody is going to be able to convince me... so probably time to quit on this.



Yup.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Aug 2011)

Hi Daisy

You have a blind spot, so it's worth trying to deal with it. 

Let's say A & B own a company. They are not related. They are not involved in any way except that they own a limited company which owns a corner shop.  Either can sign a cheque on the company's account. 

The only cheques which can be lodged to that account are cheques made payable to corner shop ltd.   If I buy something in that shop I can pay for it with a cheque from X made payable to Brendan. But Corner Shop ltd would want me to endorse the cheque so that they could lodge it to their account. 

Does that help in any way?


----------



## Daisy2012 (14 Aug 2011)

Thanks Brendan, but no, not really. 

That's an instance of a cheque made out to Brendan not being paid into an account in the name of Brendan. 

Also, I don't think the Corner Shop could lodge it to their account, as (certainly in the case of my business accounts) the bank will only allow me to lodge cheques to Daisy Ltd account that are made out to Daisy Ltd. They won't accept cheques made out to Daisy2012 even with endorsement. They have big signs up all over the bank to say so as well....


----------



## darag (14 Aug 2011)

Daisy, forget about the 50K already in the account.  That money already belongs to both of you and has no bearing on the situation.  Also forget any favours they've been doing for you for years; it could have been due to staff inexperience or poor communication from HQ.

When you strip it down, it's straightforward surely?

Would you expect to be allowed to ask a bank to electronically transfer money from your husbands sole account to your joint account without his approval?

There is absolutely no difference between this and what you were attempting to do here.


----------



## Daisy2012 (14 Aug 2011)

Darag, no, I wouldn't. However, when revenue make a repayment to my husband electronically it's paid into our joint account. When I receive my salary it's paid into our joint account electronically.

You are not comparing like with like. You are suggesting that I think I should have the authority to debit funds from his sole account to our joint account.

The issue is over the terms and conditions of lodging a cheque into a joint account. If there is a condition that an a/c payee cheque made out to a single person must be endorsed before it can be lodged into a joint account bearing the name of the payee, then I would like to know about it. This is why I have said that I will write to the bank and get the situation clarified.


----------



## Padraigb (14 Aug 2011)

It's simple, and no matter how many houses you go around, the matter remains a simple one: only the payee of a cheque has the right to negotiate a cheque unless and until that payee endorses that cheque to give the right of negotiation to another person. It's there in the Bills of Exchange Act.

All other interpretations, all history, the existence of joint accounts, the possession of lots of money, whatever, are red herrings.

When you say: "If there is a condition that an a/c payee cheque made out to a single person must be endorsed before it can be lodged into a joint account bearing the name of the payee, then I would like to know about it" you are being disingenuous. You have been told about it. You just don't accept what you have been told.


----------



## darag (14 Aug 2011)

Daisy, when you arranged to have your salary paid to the joint account, you authorized the transfers to the joint account.  Similarly when your husband arranged to collect a refund from revenue, he authorized them to pay the money to the joint account.

The principle is the exact same.  To transfer the value of a cheque which can solely be presented by your husband to the joint account requires his authorization.


----------



## Daisy2012 (14 Aug 2011)

Padraigb said:


> When you say: "If there is a condition that an a/c payee cheque made out to a single person must be endorsed before it can be lodged into a joint account bearing the name of the payee, then I would like to know about it" you are being disingenuous. You have been told about it. You just don't accept what you have been told.



No PadraigB, I am not being disingenuous. I am not accepting what you are telling me. I do not accept that the title of the cheque has changed. You pointed me to the Bills of Exchange act which does not say that a cheque being paid into an account in the name of the payee and a.n.other must be endorsed. The bills of exchange act says that a cheque which is crossed a/c payee only must be paid into an account in the name of the payee. It refers to cheques being endorsed if they are being paid into an account that is not in the name of the payee. 

When we opened the joint account we were asked to authorise whether one of us singly or both of us together would be able to transact on the account. 

Common practise has been for the past 20 years that we have had the joint account that a cheque made out to either one of us has been lodged by either one of us or anyone else who happens to be passing by the bank.

I popped back in here to correct my last post, but darag got there faster. As yes, absolutely, I have named the bank account into which my salary is transferred electronically, so it's not the same thing as lodging a cheque to it. 

However, darag, you also say _"To transfer the value of a cheque which can solely be presented by your husband to the joint account requires his authorization. 	"_ That is not my understanding of a cheque which is crossed a/c payee only. There is no requirement on a cheque to be presented by the named owner. A cheque can be lodged by anyone so long as it is being lodged to the account of the payee if it is crossed a/c payee only.

Again, I am going to write to the bank and have them tell me that a cheque which is crossed a/c payee only may only be lodged to a joint account on which the payee is named if it is endorsed by the payee.


----------



## Padraigb (14 Aug 2011)

And when the bank tell you that you are wrong, will you believe them?


----------



## orka (14 Aug 2011)

Daisy2012 said:


> The bills of exchange act says that a cheque which is crossed a/c payee only must be paid into an account in the name of the payee.


The payee is Mr Daisy. The payee is not 'Mr & Mrs Daisy'


Daisy2012 said:


> It refers to cheques being endorsed if they are being paid into an account that is not in the name of the payee.


The account is in the name of 'Mr & Mrs Daisy'. The account is not in the name of Mr Daisy. 

Payee name (Mr) is not the same as account name (Mr & Mrs) therefore the cheque must be endorsed. I think the nub of your confusion is the "_must be paid into an account in the name of the payee_" bit - you think that if your husband's name is part of the account name then that counts as 'in the name of'. It doesn't. The account is not in the payee's name - it is in the names of two people.


----------



## Padraigb (14 Aug 2011)

Daisy2012 said:


> ... The bills of exchange act says that a cheque which is crossed a/c payee only must be paid into an account in the name of the payee. ...



It does not, but hey, let's not worry about the facts.

You should read S.41 of the Act. That's the relevant one.


----------



## nlgbbbblth (17 Aug 2011)

Daisy2012 said:


> Sorry Gulliver - I don't see how there is a change of title. AC Payee only does not mean pay into an account with only the name of the payee on it. It means it must be paid into an account in the name of the payee and does not restrict that account to be in only the name of the payee.
> 
> For example, with my business account I have two separate accounts : No 1 account and No 2 account. When I receive a cheque made out to MSDaisy2012 Ltd I am free to lodge it into MSDaisy2012 Ltd No 1 A/C or MSDaisy2012 Ltd No 2 A/C
> 
> @Slim - they were a bit  but then again I was probably a bit discourteous myself... and I'm a big girl now...



Your business accounts are in the name of MSDaisy2012 Ltd.

No 1 A/C and No 2 A/C are mere designations.


----------



## nlgbbbblth (17 Aug 2011)

The issue as I see it is the endorsement.

An unendorsed cheque payable to Mr A and crossed account payee only should only be lodged to Mr A's sole account.

_However_ if Mr A endorses the cheque then it's a different ball game. It is permissable to lodge an endorsed account payee only cheque to a third party's account in certain circumstances.

usually
1) For solicitors clients' accounts (given that a lot of cheques that they handle have pre-printed crossings that cannot be altered - i.e. from insurance companies, drafts etc)

2) If the account holder signs an Third Party Cheque Lodgment Indemnity form. This effectively allows him to lodge such cheques on the proviso that he indemnifies the Bank against any loss - and if any cheques bounce then the Bank has the right to debit his account.

3) For small value cheques (limit set by the Bank).


----------



## Bronte (26 Aug 2011)

This thread reminds me of what my mother used to do with cheques made out to my father, she was a dab hand at forging his signature and signed the back of the cheque for him when she was doing the lodgments.


----------



## Daisy2012 (28 Aug 2011)

Bronte, but not really the point.

@ Padraigb - Is this the section you are talking about:
_(1)A bill is duly presented for acceptance which is presented in accordance with the following rules:

(a)The presentment must be made by or on behalf of the holder to the drawee or to some person authorised to accept or refuse acceptance on his behalf at a reasonable hour on a business day and before the bill is overdue:

(b)Where a bill is addressed to two or more drawees, who are not partners, presentment must be made to them all, unless one has authority to accept for all, then presentment may be made to him only:

(c)Where the drawee is dead presentment may be made to his personal representative:

(d)Where the drawee is bankrupt, presentment may be made to him or to his trustee:

(e)Where authorised by agreement or usage, a presentment through [F4a postal operator] is sufficient.

(2)Presentment in accordance with these rules is excused, and a bill may be treated as dishonoured by non-acceptance—

(a)Where the drawee is dead or bankrupt, or is a fictitious person or a person not having capacity to contract by bill:

(b)Where, after the exercise of reasonable diligence, such presentment cannot be effected:

(c)Where, although the presentment has been irregular, acceptance has been refused on some other ground.

(3)The fact that the holder has reason to believe that the bill, on presentment, will be dishonoured does not excuse presentment._

?? Still don't see where it says that a cheque made out to one person may only be lodged into an account which is solely in that person's name.

@ nlgbbbblth - this is actually the nub of the issue. I can not see anywhere anything that says that a cheque which is crossed a/c payee only can only be lodged to an account in the sole name of the payee.

I have contacted the bank and asked them for their policy, but so far they haven't managed to send it to me. 

I also asked them was there a form that we could sign that would allow us to lodge cheques made out to one of us into our joint account without endorsement. They didn't mention the third party cheque lodgement indemnity form - maybe because it isn't going into a third party account! 

D


----------



## Padraigb (28 Aug 2011)

Daisy2012 said:


> @ Padraigb - Is this the section you are talking about:
> _... The presentment must be made by or on behalf of the holder to the drawee or to some person authorised to accept or refuse acceptance on his behalf ..._
> 
> ?? Still don't see where it says that a cheque made out to one person may only be lodged into an account which is solely in that person's name....



I have left in the core section, and draw your attention to the phrase: "by or on behalf of the holder".

You have been ignoring the point that I have been making, which has nothing whatsoever to do with joint accounts: it is to do with who may negotiate a cheque. Without supporting evidence, the bank should work on the basis that your niece is not the holder nor is she acting on behalf of the holder.


----------

