I had the misfortune of dealing with a builder who took a lot of money
off me and then disappeared. I tried to trace him and it turns out he
has no money at all and the money I paid him and others has
disappeared. So I cant possibly sue him.

However, I have been told by my bank that all the cheques I gave to
him have been cashed in a high st cash shop and not through his own
bank account.

All my cheques have 'AC Payee only' on them and it seems that my bank
did not take notice of this and cashed the cheques for the third
party. My bank is not accepting responsibility now. Whats the point of
having the 'AC Payee only' on cheques if banks dont pay any attention
to it and cash cheques to anybody.

Is there anything I can do (eg: take action against my bank or the
cash shop)? I have to do something as it is a very large amount.

"Nick" wrote in message
...
I had the misfortune of dealing with a builder who took a lot of money
off me and then disappeared. I tried to trace him and it turns out he
has no money at all and the money I paid him and others has
disappeared. So I cant possibly sue him.

However, I have been told by my bank that all the cheques I gave to
him have been cashed in a high st cash shop and not through his own
bank account.

All my cheques have 'AC Payee only' on them and it seems that my bank
did not take notice of this and cashed the cheques for the third
party. My bank is not accepting responsibility now. Whats the point of
having the 'AC Payee only' on cheques if banks dont pay any attention
to it and cash cheques to anybody.

So that the Bank does have to take responsibility.

Go back to them and escalate your complaint until you reach a person who
does know the rules

tim

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Nick" wrote in message
...
I had the misfortune of dealing with a builder who took a lot of money
off me and then disappeared. I tried to trace him and it turns out he
has no money at all and the money I paid him and others has
disappeared. So I cant possibly sue him.

However, I have been told by my bank that all the cheques I gave to
him have been cashed in a high st cash shop and not through his own
bank account.

All my cheques have 'AC Payee only' on them and it seems that my bank
did not take notice of this and cashed the cheques for the third
party. My bank is not accepting responsibility now. Whats the point of
having the 'AC Payee only' on cheques if banks dont pay any attention
to it and cash cheques to anybody.

So that the Bank does have to take responsibility.

Go back to them and escalate your complaint until you reach a person who
does know the rules

How do these cheque cashing shops work then, since virtually all cheques are
crossed AC payee?

Here's an example: http://www.stockandcheques.co.uk/cheques.php -they are happy
to take crossed AC payee cheques.

I thought all they had to do was get proof of ID, ie that the person presenting
the cheque is the person the cheque is made out to. Maybe they "open" a
temporary account?

--
Andy

On 17 Oct, 21:12, "Andy Pandy"
wrote:
"tim....." wrote in message

...





"Nick" wrote in message
...
I had the misfortune of dealing with a builder who took a lot of money
off me and then disappeared. I tried to trace him and it turns out he
has no money at all and the money I paid him and others has
disappeared. So I cant possibly sue him.

However, I have been told by my bank that all the cheques I gave to
him have been cashed in a high st cash shop and not through his own
bank account.

All my cheques have 'AC Payee only' on them and it seems that my bank
did not take notice of this and cashed the cheques for the third
party. My bank is not accepting responsibility now. Whats the point of
having the 'AC Payee only' on cheques if banks dont pay any attention
to it and cash cheques to anybody.

So that the Bank does have to take responsibility.

Go back to them and escalate your complaint until you reach a person who
does know the rules

How do these cheque cashing shops work then, since virtually all cheques are
crossed AC payee?

Here's an example:http://www.stockandcheques.co.uk/cheques.php-they are happy
to take crossed AC payee cheques.

I thought all they had to do was get proof of ID, ie that the person presenting
the cheque is the person the cheque is made out to. Maybe they "open" a
temporary account?

--
Andy

"Account Payee or Restrictive Crossing
This crossing can be made in both general and special crossing by
adding the words Account Payee. In this type of crossing the
collecting banker is supposed to credit the amount of the cheque to
the account of the payee only. The cheque remains transferable but the
liability of the collecting banker is enhanced in case he credits the
proceeds of the cheque so crossed to any person other than the payee
and the indorsement in favour of the last payee is proved forged.The
collecting banker must act like a blood hound and make proper
enquiries as to the title of the last indorsee from the original payee
named in the cheque before collecting an 'Account Payee' cheque in his
account."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_of_cheques

PeterSaxton wrote:
"Account Payee or Restrictive Crossing

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_of_cheques

Beware that it isn't clear to which country the Wikipedia text refers.

Theo

PeterSaxton wrote:

On 17 Oct, 21:12, "Andy Pandy"
wrote:

How do these cheque cashing shops work then, since virtually all cheques
are crossed AC payee?

They work by taking the risk of being sued in case they give the money
to the wrong person. They either have insurance for this, or they self
insure, funded by the fees they charge.

Here's an example:http://www.stockandcheques.co.uk/cheques.php-they are
happy to take crossed AC payee cheques.

I thought all they had to do was get proof of ID, ie that the person
presenting the cheque is the person the cheque is made out to. Maybe they
"open" a temporary account?

"Account Payee or Restrictive Crossing
This crossing can be made in both general and special crossing by
adding the words Account Payee. In this type of crossing the
collecting banker is supposed to credit the amount of the cheque to
the account of the payee only. The cheque remains transferable but the
liability of the collecting banker is enhanced in case he credits the
proceeds of the cheque so crossed to any person other than the payee
and the indorsement in favour of the last payee is proved forged.The
collecting banker must act like a blood hound and make proper
enquiries as to the title of the last indorsee from the original payee
named in the cheque before collecting an 'Account Payee' cheque in his
account."

So does the crossing mean that the collecting banker need only make sure
the money goes to the right person, or must it be to *a bank account* in
the name of the right person? The words clearly seem to mean the latter,
and the drawer would normally expect them to mean just that, and by giving
the money to someone in cash the cashing shop is committing a technical
irregularity. The question arises whether in law this irregularity is
enough on which to sue, or whether having made sure they gave the cash to
the right person (which in this case they clearly did) is a valid defence.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 23:03:06 GMT, Ronald Raygun put finger to keyboard
and typed:


So does the crossing mean that the collecting banker need only make sure
the money goes to the right person, or must it be to *a bank account* in
the name of the right person? The words clearly seem to mean the latter,
and the drawer would normally expect them to mean just that, and by giving
the money to someone in cash the cashing shop is committing a technical
irregularity. The question arises whether in law this irregularity is
enough on which to sue, or whether having made sure they gave the cash to
the right person (which in this case they clearly did) is a valid defence.

The shop can give cash to anyone for the cheque. It's the *bank* which
must pay it into an account. That account does not need to be that of
the original payee, but it must be an account held at that bank.

The reason for this is that, by paying the cheque into an account, the
bank can subsequently reverse that payment and regain the funds if the
payment is challenged (for example, if the named payee complains that
the cheque was stolen or otherwise illegitimately transferred). So
both the bank and the original payee are protected against
unauthorised use of the cheque by a third party. If a crossed cheque
is used illegitimately by a third party, that party will be the loser
if the original payee discovers the use and takes steps to reverse it.

By comparison, an uncrossed cheque can be converted to cash over the
counter at a bank, and, if that conversion is done by an unauthorised
person, neither the bank nor the original payee have any way to regain
the funds. If an uncrossed cheque is used illegitimately by a third
party, the loser will be the original payee.

Crossing a cheque, and the use of "A/C Payee", therefore, is not
intended to prevent the legitimate transfer of a cheque from the
original payee to a third party. Rather, it is intended as a safeguard
against illegitimate transfer to a third party by providing a
mechanism by which such a transfer can be reversed.

The risk to the shop which cashes a crossed cheque is that the person
transferring it to them is not the original payee. If they cash a
stolen cheque, for example, then the original payee can force the
shop's bank to reverse the credit to the shop's account in order that
the original payee may then be correctly credited with the funds. So
the shop which cashes the cheque should, for their own protection,
take necessary steps to ensure that they are giving the money to the
named payee. If they fail to take sufficient precautions then they are
not breaking any laws, but they will be in severe danger of being
exploited in a way that will cost them money.

Mark
--
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

Mark Goodge wrote:

By comparison, an uncrossed cheque can be converted to cash over the
counter at a bank, and, if that conversion is done by an unauthorised
person, neither the bank nor the original payee have any way to regain
the funds. If an uncrossed cheque is used illegitimately by a third
party, the loser will be the original payee.


I think you are confusing &Co crossings with A/c payee crossings.

I believe, with A/c payee crossings, it is possible to name the bank, or
even specify the account, specfically.

On Oct 17, 5:03*pm, Nick wrote:
I had the misfortune of dealing with a builder who took a lot of money
off me and then disappeared. I tried to trace him and it turns out he
has no money at all and the money I paid him and others has
disappeared. So I cant possibly sue him.

However, I have been told by my bank that all the cheques I gave to
him have been cashed in a high st cash shop and not through his own
bank account.

All my cheques have 'AC Payee only' on them and it seems that my bank
did not take notice of this and cashed the cheques for the third
party. My bank is not accepting responsibility now. Whats the point of
having the 'AC Payee only' on cheques if banks dont pay any attention
to it and cash cheques to anybody.

Is there anything I can do (eg: take action against my bank or the
cash shop)? I have to do something as it is a very large amount.

A cheque is a promise to pay. The builder does not claim he hasn't
been paid so the banks are probably correct in claiming they have
carried out appropriate procedures. If he subsequently come back and
says he never received your cheque that's when this shop has to pay
the money back to the issuing bank. It's why they are so careful in
ensuring they get all the personal details of the person asking for
the cash in return for the cheque.

If you didn't like his work why did you pay him? What do mean by
"took your money"? It sounded like you freely gave it to him.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:03:51 -0700 (PDT), Nick put finger to keyboard
and typed:

I had the misfortune of dealing with a builder who took a lot of money
off me and then disappeared. I tried to trace him and it turns out he
has no money at all and the money I paid him and others has
disappeared. So I cant possibly sue him.

However, I have been told by my bank that all the cheques I gave to
him have been cashed in a high st cash shop and not through his own
bank account.

All my cheques have 'AC Payee only' on them and it seems that my bank
did not take notice of this and cashed the cheques for the third
party. My bank is not accepting responsibility now. Whats the point of
having the 'AC Payee only' on cheques if banks dont pay any attention
to it and cash cheques to anybody.

Is there anything I can do (eg: take action against my bank or the
cash shop)? I have to do something as it is a very large amount.

Even if the money had been paid into his account, there wouldn't be
anything you could do. His bank wouldn't give you the money back just
because you changed your mind about paying him. They'd tell you, quite
rightly, to take action through the courts in the usual way.

Mark
--
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff