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

D

Daisy2012

Registered User
Messages
107
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?
 
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
 
I wish some people would re-read their posts before submitting them to see if they make any sense!
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
orka said:
having a joint account doesn't give you dominion over all the other person's money.
Click to expand...

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 said:
- having a joint account doesn't give you dominion over all the other person's money.
Click to expand...
TarfHead said:
I disagree. If the account is Repayable to Either, then there is no 'your money/my money' distinction.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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..
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?

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
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top