# not allowed lodge crossed cheques into joint account ?



## Midsummer (15 Feb 2008)

Hi - I just wanted to relate something that happened in the bank today - I was lodging cheques into a joint account; 2 in my name 1 in husband's name.  The teller said I couldn't lodge the husband's cheque (revenue tax refund) because he hadn't signed the back.  I assumed he thought it was my sole account they were going into so I said no it's a joint account.  He insisted he couldn't lodge it as it said "a/c payee only" on it etc.    I argued that it's going into his account so that's fine.  Anyway I asked for a manager and he said "just go to customer services" (huge queue) - I said I'm not moving etc. so he got a customer services manager.

Anyway she repeated the same thing saying that "unless the account holder *is present* and lodges the cheque into their own account it must be signed on the back".  I argued that I had never heard of this etc. She said "it's on the financial regulator's website".  So anyway I just lodged my 2 cheques and left.

I looked up the financial regulator's website - so sign anywhere so I rang them.  V. helpful person took my query and put me on hold - basically said that even her more senior colleagues hadn't heard of this rule and that really I should have been able to lodge my husband's crossed cheque into our joint account etc.  She also said that no it's not on the website & she hadn't heard of any new ruling regarding it.  She gave me the bank's customer care number.

So I rang them and they backed up what their branch had done (of course) and said that yes there was a new rule on it.

My query is - surely "a/c payee only" covers joint accounts ?  I'm sure it can be interpreted either way really as even the regulator doesn't have a definition.  Very annoying from a customer services point of view though.  

There were no signs anywhere advising of the new rule and I guarantee if I had just put them in the express lodgement like I was going to in the beginning I wouldn't have had all the hassle that followed !

The gas thing was the teller then said "do you still want to lodge these cheques ?" - as if I was just going to storm out and open an account somewhere else immediately...LOL.

I am tempted to write to the manager of the branch about it but I'm sure I'll just get a standard "we're right actually" reply.


----------



## efm (15 Feb 2008)

Midsummer said:


> So I rang them and they backed up what their branch had done (of course) and said that yes there was a new rule on it.


 
Can you get the bank to confirm what the actual rule wording is, where it written, who issued it and under what legislation?


----------



## Midsummer (15 Feb 2008)

I rang them again and apparently it's not a new rule - it's just being enforced more strictly now. They couldn't give me any other information on it. I'm sure they're right it's just annoying more than anything.


----------



## csirl (15 Feb 2008)

Write to them along the lines suggested by efm.


----------



## cougar330 (15 Feb 2008)

I had a similar situation recently. She told me the situation, I mentioned how strange that I couldn't lodge a cheque into our own account when it was made payable to one of the account holders. Her answer was "its not strange if you understood the rules" - boy did that make me feel stupid!!
Thanks to the nice friendly staff in Bank Of Ireland!


----------



## Midsummer (15 Feb 2008)

how could you not know the rules !!  Same bank - it must be just a new policy and enforcement of an old rule.  Pity they couldn't put up a few signs or something to save the embarrassment of customers before they train their staff !


----------



## Liar's Poker (15 Feb 2008)

It's the usual case of "computer says no". It's widespread in the banking sector. I think they get brainwashed during induction  to stop using their common sense.


----------



## Midsummer (15 Feb 2008)

> Write to them along the lines suggested by efm.


 
I might do that emphasising the customer services aspect.


----------



## John Rambo (15 Feb 2008)

The same thing has happened to me and to be honest I can understand the bank's position. The cheque is made out to the other party and crossed. If you're allowed lodge it you can withdraw the funds immediately which shouldn't happen. Obviously in practice this is a pain in the neck as it can mean extra trips to the bank but there is logic behind it.


----------



## Midsummer (15 Feb 2008)

> there is logic behind it.


yes I can understand esp. if there was a marital dispute relating to a joint account that the bank wasn't aware of - but I just think they should warn customers before moving the goalposts !


----------



## zag (15 Feb 2008)

I just avoid this situation by lodging these cheques (well, all cheques really) via express lodgement.  Never, ever, ever had one returned to me in this way.  In practical terms the people doing the processing just couldn't be bothered to go to all the trouble of whatever it is that is involved in returning the cheque when it patently is destined for that account, but someone at a counter can just hand it back to you.

John Rambo - does a cheque made out to "Joe Murphy & Mary Murphy" and lodged to a joint account in that name have to be endorsed by the person who is not present at the lodging ?

z


----------



## Midsummer (15 Feb 2008)

> lodging these cheques (well, all cheques really) via express lodgement


 oh I wish I had today - I usually do but I decided there was a small risk they would go missing and as they were big enough I queued up to take the grief in person...  I agree though I'm sure it would have gone through no problem that way.


----------



## twofor1 (15 Feb 2008)

I had the same problem lodging wife's cheque having done it several times previously without incident. New guidelines I was told. I think their reasoning is I could lodge Mrs twofor1's cheque into our joint A/c, possibly without her knowing, then as it's a joint A/c I could then draw on it. And/or she might not have wanted to lodge that cheque to our joint A/c.

In my case it was an express lodgement, they phoned me to return and collect it and said she had to sign the back of the cheque, or if she had signed the lodgement slip that would have been acceptable too.


----------



## oysterman (15 Feb 2008)

twofor1 said:


> In my case it was an express lodgement, they phoned me to return and collect it and said she had to sign the back of the cheque, or if she had signed the lodgement slip that would have been acceptable too.


The solution is to express lodge and write your spouse's name in the "lodged by" space. That's what I do and they haven't refused my (or rather my wife's) money yet.


----------



## mathepac (15 Feb 2008)

Midsummer said:


> ...The teller said I couldn't lodge the husband's cheque (revenue tax refund) because he hadn't signed the back...


Take all the pain, queuing, obscure rules, signatures and frustration out of the equation, give Revenue the account details, they'll lodge it directly with husband's PPSN as part of the transaction reference (so you'll know whose money it REALLY is ).


----------



## Midsummer (15 Feb 2008)

> so you'll know whose money it REALLY is


don't worry I do - and mine is the bigger portion !


----------



## Black Sheep (17 Feb 2008)

Lodged cheque made out to Hubby into joint account via Express Lodgement as I have been doing since Express Lodgement was invented. It was returned by post for his signature. Had a word with a friend who worked in B of I for 30 years (not in public office). He says it's correct procedure and should have been enforced years ago.

By the way if Hubby went into B of I they would probably ask him for I D. Don't think he has been inside that door  in a very long time


----------



## zag (17 Feb 2008)

Hmm, looks like they are 'tightening up', after a fashion.

I may have to resort to what has been suggested above by oysterman - write Lodged by Mrs Z McFlanagan O'Loonasy when lodging one of her cheques and Lodged by Mr Z O'Loonasy when lodging one of mine.  If I have to lodge a joint cheque then the lodged by details might need a sheet all of their own.

z


----------



## jammacjam (17 Feb 2008)

I dont think this is a new thing as i have seen this six or seven years ago, maybe they should have been enforcing this all along.


----------



## leex (18 Feb 2008)

Had a similar issue with 1 BOI branch. My 2 yr old son received a low value crossed cheque at Christmas. My wife and I have a joint account with BOI. I brought cheque and his birth cert (to prove it was being lodged to his parents a/c) to one BOI branch and they refused it. They tried to get me to open a Child saver account for him.

Went to a different branch of BoI some days later and it was lodged over the counter without issue...and they didn't ask to see birth cert.


----------



## Quarehawk (20 Feb 2008)

“The Law of Banks and Credit Institutions”, by Mary Donnelly, (Roundhall, Sweet and Maxwell, 2000) points out that three types of cheque crossing are dealt with under the 1882 Bills of Exchange Act, but that the account payee crossing “…does not yet have any legislative basis in this jurisdiction”. However, we will see later that this does not mean that this type of crossing is devoid of impact.

The three crossings dealt with under the 1882 Act are The General Crossing, the Special Crossing and the Non-Negotiable Crossing. 

The General Crossing consists of two parallel lines. The words “& Co” may be added, or not, as the case may be. Whether they are added is immaterial. The impact of a general crossing is that the cheque may only be lodged to a bank account. This bank account need not necessarily be the account of the payee. 

The second or Special crossing type specifies the bank into which the proceeds must be paid.

The Third Crossing is the “Not Negotiable” Crossing – this means that in addition to the cheque having to be lodged to a bank, the cheque is deprived of it’s negotiable property. In other words, while the cheque is transferable, the transferee cannot obtain a better title to the cheque than it’s previous holder.

The “Account Payee Only” crossing was dealt with in the UK under the Cheques Act of 1992. This inserted a new Section into the 1882 Act, which meant that the cheque was rendered non-transferable and valid only in relation to the parties mentioned. In both the UK and Irish jurisdictions this has had the practical impact that if a bank ignores the instruction, it will find it difficult to rely upon a defence based upon statute law.

In 1996 Section 50 of the Central Bank Bill tried to introduce a similar provision into Irish Law but it was withdrawn, presumably because a significant proportion of the Irish population did not have bank accounts at that time. Ms. Donnelly concludes “Despite the absence of legislation, individuals will continue to use this popular form of wording when drawing cheques and collecting banks will still insist that cheques marked “account payee” will not be collected unless they can be lodged directly into the payee’s account”.


----------



## zag (20 Feb 2008)

"In 1996 Section 50 of the Central Bank Bill tried to introduce a similar provision into Irish Law but it was withdrawn, presumably because a significant proportion of the Irish population did not have bank accounts at that time"

Surely only minors and ex-Finance Ministers wouldn't have had bank accounts at this stage ?  Even then I'm sure that many minors could have got it together.  We're not talking 1896 or even 1966 here.


z


----------



## Marie (22 Feb 2008)

This is certainly nothing new or a 'tightening up' though it is interesting to learn the system has been in place since 1882.  

In school (in 'Commercial Training' as it used to be called ) we were taught that "A/c Payee Only" written between the two parallel heavy lines protected the cheque so it could not be cashed in by anyone other than the person named "The payee".  I use it when sending cheques through the post.

I've never known whether or not it was effective.  It clearly is.


----------



## wishbone (22 Feb 2008)

I did exactly that the other day - name of account was Ms Wishbone and Mr Wishbone.  Cheque was crossed and made payable to Mr Wishbone (despite it being my Med 1 claim!) anyway - teller said he needed to sign the back of it, I said joint account was in his name also - she chequed (ha ha) with Manager and he said that if the account contained his name that it could be lodged, - and it was.  Maybe the cheque didn't have a/c payee only, not sure, or maybe it was me saying put it into his account then, doesn't matter...but it was accepted (AIB).  I've always done this, and last time was the only time it was even queried.  Can't wait for next time now!


----------



## Joe1234 (29 Feb 2008)

I lodged 2 tax refund cheques yesterday - one in my name and one in my wifes name, to our joint account in BOI, by express lodgement.  Neither were signed on the back.  Nobody called me saying there was any problem.


----------



## Daisy2012 (18 Jul 2011)

Sorry to drag up an old post, but I've just had exactly the same thing happen. My niece went in to lodge a cheque for Mr Daisy2012 into our joint account and the cashier refused to accept it without his signature on the back. They said I should ring my branch and they would explain it to me. So I did, and I simply can not understand the logic. 

Can anyone explain to me how lodging a cheque made out to Mr Daisy2012 into an account that is called Mr Daisy2012 and Ms Daisy2012 have to be signed by Mr Daisy2012?

The operator on the phone explained that it was to prevent fraud. How?
She said that we might have split up or something - so how is paying a cheque made out to him into the joint account going to stop any fraud or ... anything at all... just because he has signed it? 

I simply do not get it. Can anyone tell me any way that this might be an issue?


----------



## DB74 (18 Jul 2011)

Daisy2012 said:


> Can anyone tell me any way that this might be an issue?



If you were separated and the cheque came directly to your address (prior marital home) then you could lodge it to a joint account and spend the money without him ever knowing. If he had already signed it though then this wouldn't be an issue as he would have actually seen the cheque and presumably given it to you in good faith.

It should be up to the couple to sort these things out first but it doesn't always happen like that.


----------



## Daisy2012 (19 Jul 2011)

Still don't get it - if it's a joint account he has as much access to the money as I do and presumably to the statements.


----------



## Padraigb (19 Jul 2011)

It doesn't matter what account the money is being paid into; what matters is who the payee on the cheque is. The payee must endorse the cheque if it is being negotiated by somebody else.


----------



## Daisy2012 (19 Jul 2011)

What do you mean "negotiated" by someone else?


----------



## Crugers (19 Jul 2011)

Daisy2012 said:


> Still don't get it - if it's a joint account he has as much access to the money as I do and presumably to the statements.



Firstly in no way am I standing up for the bank - I've been a serial victim of their sometimes ' off the wall' rules...

But the part of your post that I've underlined says that you have 'access' to the funds. The cheque on the other hand, instructs the bank to give access to the 'funds' to Mr Daisy only. So the bank wants their rear covered by getting Mr Daisy to sign the back.


----------



## Padraigb (19 Jul 2011)

Daisy2012 said:


> What do you mean "negotiated" by someone else?



What I mean in this case is your niece. She is not a party to the cheque, and she was attempting to pay it into a bank account. It's not relevant that your husband's name is on the account: he had done nothing to indicate to the bank that your niece has his authority to pay the cheque into his account. His signature on the reverse of the cheque is an indication that he is passing it on for her to negotiate it with his approval.


----------



## Daisy2012 (20 Jul 2011)

Thanks for the answer - but it still doesn't quite do it for me. If that were true, surely any cheque being lodged by anyone other than the account holder should then be endorsed by the payee? Isn't that the logical extension of that?

@Crugers - surely the instruction to the bank is to lodge the funds to an account in the name of the payee. It doesn't instruct them to give access to any funds. It's a simple instrument, surely, that says "You may only lodge this cheque into an account that is in this persons name". i.e. it does not say which account it has to be lodged into and it does not say "In ONLY his name". It is just baffling me still...


----------



## terrysgirl33 (20 Jul 2011)

Daisy2012 said:


> Thanks for the answer - but it still doesn't quite do it for me. If that were true, surely any cheque being lodged by anyone other than the account holder should then be endorsed by the payee? Isn't that the logical extension of that?



Yes, that is my understanding.


----------



## Daisy2012 (20 Jul 2011)

Thanks terrysgirl33 - do you mean that any cheque which is lodged by anyone other than the account holder must be endorsed by the payee? Just trying to get a handle on this.

If so, is there some similar rule for electronic funds transfer?


----------



## Gervan (20 Jul 2011)

> any cheque being lodged by anyone other than the account holder should  then be endorsed by the payee? Isn't that the logical extension of that?


This is nonsense. I regularly lodge cheques for my son before he has seen them. He doesn't live with us, but still uses this as his address.


----------



## terrysgirl33 (20 Jul 2011)

I don't handle cheques very often, but AFAIR I usually have to sign the back of them before depositing them.


----------



## Daisy2012 (20 Jul 2011)

We've had a joint account for over 20 years and have lodged I don't know how many cheques into it. They would pretty much always be for one or other of us and very rarely for both. I have NEVER been asked to sign the back of a cheque before depositing it into either the joint account or an account in my own name - so long as the cheque is marked a/c payee only and the name of the payee is on the account. It simply does not make any sense to me at all.

Anyone?


----------



## Padraigb (20 Jul 2011)

If you are lodging a cheque that is payable to your husband (or any other person than yourself) then it should be endorsed by the payee. The fact that your bank has not been strict in applying the rules in the past does not alter the law.


----------



## Daisy2012 (21 Jul 2011)

Sorry Padraigb - what law is that? Can you give a reference to where it can be found on the statute books. Thanks.


----------



## Padraigb (21 Jul 2011)

Bills of Exchange Act 1882 as amended by the Cheques Act 1959.


----------



## Daisy2012 (21 Jul 2011)

Thanks for the reference, but I still don't see where there is any law that says that a cheque being paid into the account in the name of the payee when it is crossed with a/c payee only must be endorsed (or is it indorsed?) by the payee. The cheques act appears to be introducing safeguards for banks on cheques which have been accepted and cleared by them.


----------



## Padraigb (21 Jul 2011)

Neither Act mentions uncles and nieces, either.


----------



## rayn (21 Jul 2011)

I had same problem and cashier said " Just sign your wife's name on the back please!!" problem solved.


----------



## SoylentGreen (22 Jul 2011)

Daisy2012 said:


> Thanks for the reference, but I still don't see where there is any law that says that a cheque being paid into the account in the name of the payee when it is crossed with a/c payee only must be endorsed (or is it indorsed?) by the payee. The cheques act appears to be introducing safeguards for banks on cheques which have been accepted and cleared by them.


 

What do you think "a/c payee only"  means?


----------



## Daisy2012 (22 Jul 2011)

a/c payee ONLY means it can only be paid into an account in the name of the payee. It does not mean that the a/c has to be in the name of the payee SOLELY. Otherwise all joint accounts would be a waste of time.


----------



## Daisy2012 (22 Jul 2011)

rayn said:


> I had same problem and cashier said " Just sign your wife's name on the back please!!" problem solved.



It's ridiculous, eh? Does anyone know if the bank scans in both the front and the back of the cheque when it's lodged? I would assume they scan the front of the cheque when they process it. Although maybe that's too logical for a bank?


----------



## nlgbbbblth (17 Aug 2011)

Daisy2012 said:


> It's ridiculous, eh? Does anyone know if the bank scans in both the front and the back of the cheque when it's lodged? I would assume they scan the front of the cheque when they process it. Although maybe that's too logical for a bank?



Cheques scanned by the banks' respective clearing departments. Front and back.


----------



## roker (18 Aug 2011)

Do they do a comparison to the signature signed on the back? i know they do not look at the signature on the front when paying a cheque unless it is over €1000, or that used to be the case


----------



## nlgbbbblth (18 Aug 2011)

roker said:


> Do they do a comparison to the signature signed on the back? i know they do not look at the signature on the front when paying a cheque unless it is over €1000, or that used to be the case



They compare the drawer's signature (from the front of the cheque) with the signature on the mandate held for that account. 

It's physically impossible to examine every cheque presented....


----------



## roker (25 Aug 2011)

Exactly, they only compare the signature if it is a large amount


----------

