Undated Cheque

Post by Jeff Gaines
I wrote a cheque today for a local contractor but forgot to put a date
on it, first one I've written for nearly a year!
His bank wouldn't process it. I was under the impression that a payee
could write a date on an undated cheque, is that incorrect?

Unfortunately for you and the contractor, there is a disjoint between
what the law permits and what banks permit.

For example, legally, a cheque doesn't expire for six years. However,
most banks reject cheques that are over six months old to prevent fraud.

One cannot insist that a bank accepts a cheque dated 5 years and 364
days ago merely because the law says it is still valid.

The terms and conditions of the account in question detail what the bank
will and won't permit. If they say that they won't permit a cheque
where the payee has written the date, then that's the end of that.

Similarly, as in the example above, banks often cite "fraud prevention"
for the reason certain things are done the way they are.

So, without knowing the two banks involved and the types of account
involved (different types of account typically have different terms and
conditions), and then having thoroughly studied the relevant terms and
conditions for the payer and payee account, it is impossible to answer
the question.

But, from a purely practical point of view, if his bank say they won't
process it, then they won't process it.

Quoting sections from The Bills of Exchange Act 1882, and / or the
Cheques Acts of 1957 and 1992 at the teller isn't likely to yield a
result where they say, "You know what? You're absolutely correct.
We'll take the cheque after all."

If they've been trained / instructed not to take a cheque where it
appears that the payee has written the date, then they won't take it.

I wish there were a better / different answer, but it is what it is.

Regards

S.P.

Jeff Gaines

2022-02-11 19:46:22 UTC

Post by Simon Parker
I wish there were a better / different answer, but it is what it is.

No probs, he lives in the next road I'll swap it for another tomorrow.

I am up against the other issues you mention as well, I tried to pay him
via Internet banking but there was a mismatch between account number and
name. Despite my saying pay anyway the bank stopped the payment and have
also stopped my Internet access until I appear at a branch with 'photo ID.
Presumably this is one of their CYA rules as well.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his
life.
(Jeremy Thorpe, 1962)

newshound

2022-02-12 09:30:31 UTC

Post by Simon Parker
I wish there were a better / different answer, but it is what it is.

No probs, he lives in the next road I'll swap it for another tomorrow.
I am up against the other issues you mention as well, I tried to pay him
via Internet banking but there was a mismatch between account number and
name. Despite my saying pay anyway the bank stopped the payment and have
also stopped my Internet access until I appear at a branch with 'photo
ID. Presumably this is one of their CYA rules as well.

I hit something similar recently with a supplier who had given their
name in writing as Fred Bloggs Limited, while the bank insisted on Fred
Bloggs Ltd

TTman

2022-02-12 11:31:58 UTC

Post by Simon Parker
I wish there were a better / different answer, but it is what it is.

No probs, he lives in the next road I'll swap it for another tomorrow.
I am up against the other issues you mention as well, I tried to pay him
via Internet banking but there was a mismatch between account number and
name. Despite my saying pay anyway the bank stopped the payment and have
also stopped my Internet access until I appear at a branch with 'photo
ID. Presumably this is one of their CYA rules as well.

Count your blessings the bank didn't accept your instruction- you could
have lost the money forever... I like their protection in that respect!
A typo is so easy to do.....

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Jeff Gaines

2022-02-12 12:30:06 UTC

Post by TTman

Post by Simon Parker
I wish there were a better / different answer, but it is what it is.

No probs, he lives in the next road I'll swap it for another tomorrow.
I am up against the other issues you mention as well, I tried to pay him
via Internet banking but there was a mismatch between account number and
name. Despite my saying pay anyway the bank stopped the payment and have
also stopped my Internet access until I appear at a branch with 'photo
ID. Presumably this is one of their CYA rules as well.

Count your blessings the bank didn't accept your instruction- you could
have lost the money forever... I like their protection in that respect! A
typo is so easy to do.....

I wouldn't have, the bank details were correct except for a small
difference in the name or I wouldn't have authorised it.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
You can't tell which way the train went by looking at the tracks

Michael Chare

2022-02-12 15:38:33 UTC

Post by TTman

Post by Simon Parker
I wish there were a better / different answer, but it is what it is.

No probs, he lives in the next road I'll swap it for another tomorrow.
I am up against the other issues you mention as well, I tried to pay
him via Internet banking but there was a mismatch between account
number and name. Despite my saying pay anyway the bank stopped the
payment and have also stopped my Internet access until I appear at a
branch with 'photo ID. Presumably this is one of their CYA rules as well.

Count your blessings the bank didn't accept your instruction- you could
have lost the money forever... I like their protection in that respect!
A typo is so easy to do.....

I had a similar problem. When I told the person I was trying to pay it
turned out that he had made a mistake with the account number! It was
only a few pounds.

Jon Ribbens

2022-02-12 16:48:06 UTC

Post by Simon Parker
I wish there were a better / different answer, but it is what it is.

No probs, he lives in the next road I'll swap it for another tomorrow.

Why don't you just write a date on the cheque he already has?
For that matter, why doesn't he?

Post by Jeff Gaines
I am up against the other issues you mention as well, I tried to pay him
via Internet banking but there was a mismatch between account number and
name.

He might be well advised to find out what his own name is.

Given the verification of bank account names when using online banking
is relatively new, various people and businesses may encounter stumbling
blocks they are unused to. For example, when I moved house last, I had
to contact the estate agent and say "your paperwork and website hold out
that you are trading as 'Foo Estates', but as far as I can tell you are
actually 'Something Agents Ltd'... is that correct? (and do you know
you are breaking the law?)"

PJK

2022-02-12 10:32:05 UTC

Post by Simon Parker

Unfortunately for you and the contractor, there is a disjoint between
what the law permits and what banks permit.
For example, legally, a cheque doesn't expire for six years. However,
most banks reject cheques that are over six months old to prevent fraud.
One cannot insist that a bank accepts a cheque dated 5 years and 364
days ago merely because the law says it is still valid.
The terms and conditions of the account in question detail what the bank
will and won't permit. If they say that they won't permit a cheque
where the payee has written the date, then that's the end of that.
Similarly, as in the example above, banks often cite "fraud prevention"
for the reason certain things are done the way they are.
So, without knowing the two banks involved and the types of account
involved (different types of account typically have different terms and
conditions), and then having thoroughly studied the relevant terms and
conditions for the payer and payee account, it is impossible to answer
the question.
But, from a purely practical point of view, if his bank say they won't
process it, then they won't process it.
Quoting sections from The Bills of Exchange Act 1882, and / or the
Cheques Acts of 1957 and 1992 at the teller isn't likely to yield a
result where they say, "You know what? You're absolutely correct. We'll
take the cheque after all."
If they've been trained / instructed not to take a cheque where it
appears that the payee has written the date, then they won't take it.
I wish there were a better / different answer, but it is what it is.
Regards
S.P.

Many years ago I ran a retail business and occasionally staff would take
an unsigned cheque despite supposedly having checked the signature
against the bank card. I used to write to them care of the bank and
request a signature until one day someone suggested that for the values
involved banks never checked a signature. Thereafter I just signed any
such cheques and never had a problem with them being paid!

I'm sure that they wouldn't check the date or who had written it if it
was done before the attempt to pay it in. If the contractor didn't
notice I can see that a risk averse cashier would refuse it.

Peter.

Jon Ribbens

2022-02-12 16:50:16 UTC

Post by PJK
Many years ago I ran a retail business and occasionally staff would take
an unsigned cheque despite supposedly having checked the signature
against the bank card. I used to write to them care of the bank and
request a signature until one day someone suggested that for the values
involved banks never checked a signature. Thereafter I just signed any
such cheques and never had a problem with them being paid!

Woah. You're pretty lucky you didn't end up in serious trouble with the
police there I think. It would only take one cheque to be checked for
significant consequences to ensue.

PJK

2022-02-12 17:53:49 UTC

Woah. You're pretty lucky you didn't end up in serious trouble with the
police there I think. It would only take one cheque to be checked for
significant consequences to ensue.

I reckon the risk was close to zero. If it was checked they would
bounce the cheque as "signature doesn't match" or similar wording. They
would then return it to the payee i.e. me and I would lose that amount
of money. I don't think the cheque issuer would even know and I can't
see anyone else telling the police. If they were told I really can't
see them invetigating, particularly in the face of a denial of any
knowledge which is all they would have got.

I've had a signed letter from an ex employee threatening fairly
seriously to kill me and they didn't really want to pursue that!

Peter

Jon Ribbens

2022-02-12 19:48:49 UTC

Post by PJK

Woah. You're pretty lucky you didn't end up in serious trouble with the
police there I think. It would only take one cheque to be checked for
significant consequences to ensue.

I reckon the risk was close to zero. If it was checked they would
bounce the cheque as "signature doesn't match" or similar wording. They
would then return it to the payee i.e. me and I would lose that amount
of money. I don't think the cheque issuer would even know and I can't
see anyone else telling the police. If they were told I really can't
see them invetigating, particularly in the face of a denial of any
knowledge which is all they would have got.
I've had a signed letter from an ex employee threatening fairly
seriously to kill me and they didn't really want to pursue that!

Ah, but that only involves threat to life. Forging a signature on
a cheque involves a threat to money - a much more serious matter!

Roger Hayter

2022-02-12 20:00:26 UTC

Woah. You're pretty lucky you didn't end up in serious trouble with the
police there I think. It would only take one cheque to be checked for
significant consequences to ensue.

Is forgery a crime when done with no dishonest intent?

--
Roger Hayter

Jon Ribbens

2022-02-12 20:10:45 UTC

Woah. You're pretty lucky you didn't end up in serious trouble with the
police there I think. It would only take one cheque to be checked for
significant consequences to ensue.

Is forgery a crime when done with no dishonest intent?

I think so. Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 s1 "The offence of
forgery":

A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the
intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept
it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do
some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/45/section/1

(The meaning of "false" instrument is defined in s9(1) and includes
"if it purports to have been made in the form in which it is made by
a person who did not in fact make it in that form".)

I suppose you could argue that it isn't to anyone's "prejudice" as
the customer must have intended to sign the cheque and hence pay the
money, but that seems to me to be going out on a limb somewhat.

Roger Hayter

2022-02-12 20:54:21 UTC

Woah. You're pretty lucky you didn't end up in serious trouble with the
police there I think. It would only take one cheque to be checked for
significant consequences to ensue.

Is forgery a crime when done with no dishonest intent?

I think so. Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 s1 "The offence of
A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the
intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept
it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do
some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/45/section/1
(The meaning of "false" instrument is defined in s9(1) and includes
"if it purports to have been made in the form in which it is made by
a person who did not in fact make it in that form".)
I suppose you could argue that it isn't to anyone's "prejudice" as
the customer must have intended to sign the cheque and hence pay the
money, but that seems to me to be going out on a limb somewhat.

Unless the customer admitted to deliberately not signing (not an unknown
tactic) I would have thought that saving him writing and delivering a new
cheque was positively to his advantage, if a small one.

--
Roger Hayter

JNugent

2022-02-13 00:27:22 UTC

Woah. You're pretty lucky you didn't end up in serious trouble with the
police there I think. It would only take one cheque to be checked for
significant consequences to ensue.

Is forgery a crime when done with no dishonest intent?

What would stop the customer from remembering that he had not signed the
cheque (with whatever explanation of that which he felt obliged to give)?

The forgery of his signature is decidedly not to his advantage if he
meant it to be unsigned (and temporarily unpaid).

JNugent

2022-02-13 14:03:54 UTC

Post by Roger Hayter
Unless the customer admitted to deliberately not signing (not an unknown
tactic) I would have thought that saving him writing and delivering a new
cheque was positively to his advantage, if a small one.

What would stop the customer from remembering that he had not signed the
cheque (with whatever explanation of that which he felt obliged to give)?
The forgery of his signature is decidedly not to his advantage if he
meant it to be unsigned (and temporarily unpaid).

Thank you for paraphrasing my paragraph.

You had not addressed the notion of the cheque-issuing party having a
motive for remembering that he hadn't signed the cheque after seeing it
come up as "paid" on a statement or computer screen.

In any case, if he had deliberately not signed the cheque in order that
it would not be paid and that he would gain a few more days before the
account was debited, it would NOT be "positively to his advantage" for
either the bank to wave through his unsigned cheque or for the payee to
have forged the account-holder's signature on the unsigned cheque. It
would be a distinct disadvantage.

Norman Wells

2022-02-13 16:19:58 UTC

Post by JNugent
You had not addressed the notion of the cheque-issuing party having a
motive for remembering that he hadn't signed the cheque after seeing it
come up as "paid" on a statement or computer screen.
In any case, if he had deliberately not signed the cheque in order that
it would not be paid and that he would gain a few more days before the
account was debited, it would NOT be "positively to his advantage" for
either the bank to wave through his unsigned cheque or for the payee to
have forged the account-holder's signature on the unsigned cheque. It
would be a distinct disadvantage.

If the recipient of the unsigned cheque was of a mind to put anything in
the signature box, he'd surely put an undecipherable and untraceable
squiggle rather than try reproducing anything like the account holder's
signature. That would make it unlikely to be discovered before the bank
honoured the cheque, and pretty well impossible to pin on the recipient
even if it was.

But of course no-one would behave so dishonourably, would they? It
would be utterly reprehensible.

JNugent

2022-02-13 17:49:52 UTC

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent
You had not addressed the notion of the cheque-issuing party having a
motive for remembering that he hadn't signed the cheque after seeing
it come up as "paid" on a statement or computer screen.
In any case, if he had deliberately not signed the cheque in order
that it would not be paid and that he would gain a few more days
before the account was debited, it would NOT be "positively to his
advantage" for either the bank to wave through his unsigned cheque or
for the payee to have forged the account-holder's signature on the
unsigned cheque. It would be a distinct disadvantage.

If the recipient of the unsigned cheque was of a mind to put anything in
the signature box, he'd surely put an undecipherable and untraceable
squiggle rather than try reproducing anything like the account holder's
signature. That would make it unlikely to be discovered before the bank
honoured the cheque, and pretty well impossible to pin on the recipient
even if it was.
But of course no-one would behave so dishonourably, would they? It
would be utterly reprehensible.

I know that *I* wouldn't forge a signature on a cheque.

PJK

2022-02-13 21:16:42 UTC

Post by Norman Wells
But of course no-one would behave so dishonourably, would they? It
would be utterly reprehensible.

I know that *I* wouldn't forge a signature on a cheque.

I sleep very well at night :)

Roger Hayter

2022-02-13 15:24:54 UTC

What would stop the customer from remembering that he had not signed the
cheque (with whatever explanation of that which he felt obliged to give)?
The forgery of his signature is decidedly not to his advantage if he
meant it to be unsigned (and temporarily unpaid).

Thank you for paraphrasing my paragraph.

You had not addressed the notion of the cheque-issuing party having a
motive for remembering that he hadn't signed the cheque after seeing it
come up as "paid" on a statement or computer screen.
In any case, if he had deliberately not signed the cheque in order that
it would not be paid and that he would gain a few more days before the
account was debited, it would NOT be "positively to his advantage" for
either the bank to wave through his unsigned cheque or for the payee to
have forged the account-holder's signature on the unsigned cheque. It
would be a distinct disadvantage.

Have you not come across the conjunction "unless" before; I put it at the
beginning of my sentence cover that very point?

--
Roger Hayter

JNugent

2022-02-13 20:15:09 UTC

What would stop the customer from remembering that he had not signed the
cheque (with whatever explanation of that which he felt obliged to give)?
The forgery of his signature is decidedly not to his advantage if he
meant it to be unsigned (and temporarily unpaid).

Thank you for paraphrasing my paragraph.

You had not addressed the notion of the cheque-issuing party having a
motive for remembering that he hadn't signed the cheque after seeing it
come up as "paid" on a statement or computer screen.
In any case, if he had deliberately not signed the cheque in order that
it would not be paid and that he would gain a few more days before the
account was debited, it would NOT be "positively to his advantage" for
either the bank to wave through his unsigned cheque or for the payee to
have forged the account-holder's signature on the unsigned cheque. It
would be a distinct disadvantage.

Have you not come across the conjunction "unless" before; I put it at the
beginning of my sentence cover that very point?

<sigh>

Your thesis was that the non-signer would find it to his advantage that
his signature was forged on an uttered but unsigned cheque.

That would be a startling proposition in any circumstances. But in cases
where the cheque-issuer knows he hasn't signed, it's a stretch to see
that forgery as being to his advantage.

Roger Hayter

2022-02-13 21:33:04 UTC

What would stop the customer from remembering that he had not signed the
cheque (with whatever explanation of that which he felt obliged to give)?
The forgery of his signature is decidedly not to his advantage if he
meant it to be unsigned (and temporarily unpaid).

Thank you for paraphrasing my paragraph.

You had not addressed the notion of the cheque-issuing party having a
motive for remembering that he hadn't signed the cheque after seeing it
come up as "paid" on a statement or computer screen.
In any case, if he had deliberately not signed the cheque in order that
it would not be paid and that he would gain a few more days before the
account was debited, it would NOT be "positively to his advantage" for
either the bank to wave through his unsigned cheque or for the payee to
have forged the account-holder's signature on the unsigned cheque. It
would be a distinct disadvantage.

Have you not come across the conjunction "unless" before; I put it at the
beginning of my sentence cover that very point?

<sigh>
Your thesis was that the non-signer would find it to his advantage that
his signature was forged on an uttered but unsigned cheque.

I was saying he *might* do *unless* he had deliberately left it blank to avoid
paying. We are in violent agreement. I am not sure what you are arguing about.

Post by JNugent
That would be a startling proposition in any circumstances. But in cases
where the cheque-issuer knows he hasn't signed, it's a stretch to see
that forgery as being to his advantage.

--
Roger Hayter

JNugent

2022-02-13 00:24:57 UTC

Woah. You're pretty lucky you didn't end up in serious trouble with the
police there I think. It would only take one cheque to be checked for
significant consequences to ensue.

Is forgery a crime when done with no dishonest intent?

In general, is any action forgery if done with no dishonest intent?

But in the case outlined above, there is a clear dishonest intent - to
make the bank believe that a cheque has been signed when it has not been
signed. How dishonest is it possible to be?

The honest way to proceed - the *only* honest way to proceed - is to
request the cheque-issuing customer to sign the cheque, or to ask his
bank to get him to sign it.

There is an old trick sometimes resorted to by people with cash flow
problems, which is is to deliberately fail to sign a cheque. What if the
customer was using that trick, and saw that the cheque had been paid
even though he knew (ie, "suddenly remembered") that he hadn't signed it?

He might request the cheque from the bank. Someone might well then be
"for it".

David McNeish

2022-02-11 19:09:17 UTC

Post by Jeff Gaines
I wrote a cheque today for a local contractor but forgot to put a date on
it, first one I've written for nearly a year!
His bank wouldn't process it. I was under the impression that a payee
could write a date on an undated cheque, is that incorrect?

I can't imagine why anybody would care, or even know, who had
adhibited the date.

Martin Brown

2022-02-12 09:44:24 UTC

They could and provided that they notice that it is blank before trying
to pay it in and use the same colour Biro and a similar hand then no-one
will be any the wiser.

However, once counter staff or the robotic paying in machine has flagged
it as an "undated cheque" then you are comprehensively stuffed.

I was signing cheques on a Parish Council account for best part of two
years before it came to light that the bank hadn't processed the mandate
giving me the authority to sign them (2 signatures required).

I'm guessing it was an amount over £1k (or whatever the limit is today).
They do actually get checked for signature match.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Jon Ribbens

2022-02-12 16:52:39 UTC

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Jeff Gaines
His bank wouldn't process it. I was under the impression that a payee
could write a date on an undated cheque, is that incorrect?

I don't see why. Simply come back the next day and present it to a
different cashier. Or write the date on it and re-present it to the
machine immediately - I doubt it will remember it somehow as being
a cheque it's already seen.

Peter Johnson

2022-02-12 18:16:28 UTC

On 11 Feb 2022 18:29:28 GMT, "Jeff Gaines"

Post by Jeff Gaines
I wrote a cheque today for a local contractor but forgot to put a date on
it, first one I've written for nearly a year!
His bank wouldn't process it. I was under the impression that a payee
could write a date on an undated cheque, is that incorrect?

No. There's no rule saying that a cheque has to be in the same
handwriting. He should have left the bank, written the date in and
represented it to a different cashier.

David McNeish

2022-02-12 22:38:30 UTC