Key Post Crossed cheque : stolen & cashed : whose liability?

Fascinating reading all this.

I don't know why it's all getting so blurred though. As a banker to me it's quite clear that the CU are at fault.

PTSB sent you the chq so in their eyes they discharged their duty.

CU was not entitled to CASH a cheque crossed "A/C payee only" & made payable to 2 people. A cashier in a bank would be in severe trouble if they did this. People get a annoyed at times when we look for identification for paying out money - either withdrawals or cashing chqs - but at least we try to follow instructions. If a drawer marks a chq "A/C payee only" that is exactly what has to be adhered to.

That's my view for what it's worth...
 
Hi Perplexed...

I can see your argument - which is the PTSB's too - but I'm going with the advice I've received from the Gardaí, the IFSRA and a solicitor that - yes, the CU are at fault, but it's not for me chase it up, it's for the PTSB, who still owe us our cheque...
 
bond-007 said:
You should note that a letter becomes your property as soon as it is posted.
Click to expand...

simp.... the problem you are encountering here is something that many of us are open to being affected by...I have been watching these developments here with great interest.

bond-007: I am interested in your statement - is that a rule within the banks do you know? As a banking customer I did not know that.

It seems to tie in with what IFSRA are saying - this being the case then the banks will never lose!

This opens up a major can of worms ie. if you paid say the ESB, a tradesman etc via a cheque in the post which was subsequently cashed by someone else then who is liable?

IFSRA need to provide a position statement here.

ninsaga
 
There are two issues here that are linked. The issues are being intertwined when they shouldn't be.

Issue (1): PTSB owed Simp funds, Simp hasn't received the funds.
Issue (2): One (or more) third party procured / received and fraudulently cashed a cheque.

Simp should only concern him(?)self with issue (1).

Issue (2) involves PTSB, An Post, a fraudster (or fraudsters), the CU and PTSB a second time!!! At the end of its long journey the misappropriated cheque returned to the PTSB through the clearing system, allegedly from AIB (the CU's bankers) and the PTSB gave AIB, and hence, the CU value for this misappropriated cheque.
So the PTSB should look for a refund from AIB.
AIB should pursue the CU.
And the CU should look for a refund from the fraudster.
The fraudster is the one who is really at fault!
Who should (and most likely will) suffer the loss?
The members of the CU. The CU stupidly gave funds to someone who wasn't entitled to funds! The CU may have some luck retrieving the funds directly or by calling in the Gardai.

But Simp wasn't, isn't and shouldn't be involved in issue (2).

PTSB say they discharged their obligation by issuing the cheque.
What if:
they posted it in the wrong envelope (it happens), or
got the house number wrong in the address (it happens)...
What if An Post, PTSB's agent, simply put the letter through the wrong letterbox (it happens)...
Until PTSB can prove Simp got value for their cheque their obligation / liability to Simp stands.
 
ninsaga said:
It seems to tie in with what IFSRA are saying - this being the case then the banks will never lose!


IFSRA need to provide a position statement here.

ninsaga
Click to expand...

The OP got a call back from someone senior in IFSRA who said that he was originally given the wrong reply. They now say it is PTSB's problem. Quite right too IMO! I'm astounded that they put it back on the customer. His main fault was that he agreed to look into it for them in the first place!!

I'd like to witness anyone trying to tell a bank or utility company that they posted the cheque....I posted it..you didn't get it...tough, deal with it! You'd be sitting in the dark on the pavement before long!
 
ninsaga said:
bond-007: I am interested in your statement - is that a rule within the banks do you know? As a banking customer I did not know that.
Click to expand...

It's a post office rule. Once a letter in placed in a mail box/handed to An Post it ceases to be the property of the sender and becomes the property of the addressee. Say a person posted a letter in error and asked for the PO to give it back, they won't.
 

Ah..that's different. I imagine this just means that the person who took the letter performed an illegal act as it was not addressed to him/her.

The case against PTSB is still valid and quite honestly, I think they've behaved badly!
 
So, I forwarded my detailed email to the PTSB this morning. And now they tell me that they will transfer the money owed by direct debit - immediately upon receipt of a letter formally confirming thay we never received the money. Result.

Meanwhile the lady from the Credit Union phoned to say that PTSB head office had been onto them - so now they're taking over the matter. At last...

Thanks again for all your help and encouragement. I wonder if I would have gotten so far if I hadn't posted about it on AAM..?
 
Well, I wouldn't put anything past them. "Please give us your account details so we can direct debit the full amount ASAP!!"
 
simp said:
So, I forwarded my detailed email to the PTSB this morning. And now they tell me that they will transfer the money owed by direct debit - immediately upon receipt of a letter formally confirming thay we never received the money. Result.
Click to expand...

Simp, so so so so glad that you will eventually get your money fromPTSB!!! You must advise when the funds reach your bank account!

I must say that reading this tread has been one of the most frustrating experience I have had on AAM! I wanted to get all those who advised/suggested that you should chase up with the credit union and put them in a room and bang all their heads together!!

Your relationship was with PTSB only......not the credit union. What would have happened if say, the cheq was legitimately lost in the post.......would you have to chase it down then? Or if the cheq was cashed by an individual not an institute.......would you be left to knock at their door and ask for your money back!!

Another point I would like to make is that from a Data protection point of view should PTSB have told you who cashed the cheq? Essential the CU cashed to cheq on behalf of its member. PTSB should not have disclosed this information to you. Surely this is a breach of the data protection act?

PS: the banging of the heads is purely metaphorically - no violence was intended
 
and find out why the IFSRA gave wrong advice (unlike me ) and get an explanation in writing

and demand the IFSRA compensate you for your time and effort after they gave you the wrong advice..or get PTSB to do it for them
 
Don't forget to demand interest from PTSB at the very least. They should really be compensating you for giving you the run-around and wasting your time.
 
Simp:
The direct credit to your account...
Is it there yet?
Is it there yet?
Is it there yet?
Is it there yet?
 
Um... Not just yet. They received our letter confirming that we had not yet received the money today. So if it doesn't show up tomorrow I'm going to check back with them....

Not there yet... But getting there...
 
I'm just looking for my money. I'm not expecting goodwill from a bank..!

Still no sign of it, though...
 
Simp, I hope your money comes through at last.

I've read the whole discussion and to go off on a (slight) tangent I'm wondering why PTSB didn't do a direct credit to begin with instead of posting a cheque. Banks are supposed to be discouraging cheques and encouraging electronic transfers these days. The whole situation could've been avoided if they'd done that. Perhaps the situation necessitated a cheque and I'm being unfair?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register