Out of date dividend cheques

[Bazile]

I've got some Bradford & Bingley dividend cheques , which are passed the time limit to be presented to my bank for payment .

According to Computer share , who act for B & B , i've got to pay �12 to get each cheque reissued .

However the value of these cheques are not much more than the � 12 , they are asking for .

Any suggestions for getting these charges dropped or reduced ?

[stonekicker]

smile...show a bit of leg? why don't you just ask! if you are honest and say you forgot about them and try to strike a deal, you may get somewhere...

[Skyline D]

First things first, are they really past the date for bank presentation? The "six months" thing is an urban myth though the bank may ask for permission before cashing them. If they are within six years legally they are valid.

I've never heard of anyone being asked for that sort of money to reissue cheques but they may well be within their rights to charge it for cheques simply not banked. When I first met my wife she was in a simlar position with some minor shares she owned and hadn't bothered cashing dividend cheques for years. It was worth about �20 in total or something but I wrote to the company share registrars concerned, had a declaration signed that she had lost or never received the dividends (she had moved from the address they had on file for her though in fact the mail had been forwarded) and they re-issued dividend cheques free of charge. I'm a little surprised Computershare are adopting such a stance. It's in their interests to have these things cleared up too.

If the cheques genuinely are too old to be presented (although even then I'd try it anyway probably. Banks usually provess these things automatically and only detect a date issue if someone complains. There is the risk though that a bounced cheque charge would be more than the actual value of the cheques too?) then I'd:-

1 - Claim you never received them (possibly pointless if you've already had correspondence with them saying you have them but they are too old.

or

2 - Ask them nicely to waive the charges in the circumstances?

[kempie]

The "six months" thing is not an urban myth.

Although it is correct that a cheque remains legally valid for 6 years it is common banking practice to reject cheques that are over six months old to protect the payer, on the basis that payment may already have been made by some other means or the cheque may have been lost or stolen. However, this is at the discretion of individual banks.

[Skyline D]

"The "six months" thing is an urban myth though the bank may ask for permission before cashing them. If they are within six years legally they are valid"




"The "six months" thing is not an urban myth.

Although it is correct that a cheque remains legally valid for 6 years it is common banking practice to reject cheques that are over six months old to protect the payer, on the basis that payment may already have been made by some other means or the cheque may have been lost or stolen. However, this is at the discretion of individual banks"



So that's exactly what I just said then! His bank or indeed the paying bank may raise an issue. They may even (supposing they actually notice) refuse to accept them. But they aren't legally too old to be presented (unless of course they are actually over 6 years old).

[kempie]

An urban myth is something that doesn't really happen or is grossly exaggerated.

The British Bankers' Association Banking Code defines a cheque drawn over 6 months previously as "out-of-date" and members of the BBA must have a specific stated policy on how they deal with such an out-of date cheque, be it rejection or otherwise.

http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=3 47&a=13086

The banks operating such a policy of rejection (most of the industry) will not ask permission of the issuer to honour said out-of-date cheque; they will return it to the person presenting it and suggest that person request a new cheque be issued.

None of this equates to an urban myth.

Furthermore, in the case of dividend cheques, it is the norm for them to have a specified validity such as 6 months, 1 year or whatever it may be.

[Skyline D]

Well we can argue back and forward the definition of an "urban myth" if you like but it's hardly the point of the exercise, and you may well be correct that the dividend cheques have a shorter specified date on them for all I know.

I'd contend that if the law says six years is the limit for a cheque then the generally held belief that six months is the limit is indeed an "urban myth" and as an accountant I've seen a good few examples over the years of cheques being cashed without question by banks at over six months old and also of banks occasionally picking up the fact and phoning to ask if it is alright to clear the cheque. Notwithstanding what national policy might be stated to be, the reality is often different.

[kempie]

No need to argue the definition of urban myth - look it up.