not allowed lodge crossed cheques into joint account ?

“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In 1996 Section 50 of the Central Bank Bill tried to introduce a similar provision into Irish Law but it was withdrawn, presumably because a significant proportion of the Irish population did not have bank accounts at that time.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”.
 
"In 1996 Section 50 of the Central Bank Bill tried to introduce a similar provision into Irish Law but it was withdrawn, presumably because a significant proportion of the Irish population did not have bank accounts at that time"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
 
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:p ) 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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
I don't handle cheques very often, but AFAIR I usually have to sign the back of them before depositing them.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Sorry Padraigb - what law is that? Can you give a reference to where it can be found on the statute books. Thanks.
 
Back
Top