Delay Repay - uncashed cheques

[Manxmaninexile]

Quick question on Delay Repay.

I've just found two Delay Repay cheques (2 x £13 only) which, very stupidly (I know!) I never paid into my bank. They're both approaching two years old.

I've contacted the TOC and asked them to reissue them (probably for a fee) but they've told me that as they're over six months old there's nothing they can do.

Does any body know if this is true? My wife has previously had unpaid dividend cheques reissued (for a fee) and I'm wondering if this should be done here - or is Delay Repay compensation essentially an ex gratia payment creating no legal liability?

I'm not particularly bothered about the amount (I'd only be two quid up if they charged the same fee as for my wife's dividend cheques!) but I'm curious as to how it should work.

And yes - my fault, I know.

 

[paddington]

If you have an account with one of the banks that does phone photo pay-in of cheques, try paying them in anyway and see what happens.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Quick question on Delay Repay.

I've just found two Delay Repay cheques (2 x £13 only) which, very stupidly (I know!) I never paid into my bank. They're both approaching two years old.

I've contacted the TOC and asked them to reissue them (probably for a fee) but they've told me that as they're over six months old there's nothing they can do.

Does any body know if this is true? My wife has previously had unpaid dividend cheques reissued (for a fee) and I'm wondering if this should be done here - or is Delay Repay compensation essentially an ex gratia payment creating no legal liability?

I'm not particularly bothered about the amount (I'd only be two quid up if they charged the same fee as for my wife's dividend cheques!) but I'm curious as to how it should work.

And yes - my fault, I know.

Delay Repay is not a question of customer service. There is a legal entitlement to it.

There is, however, a question about the technicalities of payment for it, and whether they have actually satisfied their debt (and therefore owe nothing further) if you opt for a cheque and then don't cash it in.

I think there could be arguments either way about that but I see no possible disadvantage to raising a formal complaint about it and, if necessary, sending a Letter Before Action. Even if you don't intent to actually go to Court, this may result in payment.

 

[AlterEgo]

A cheque is a debt and remains so for six years.

I'd first try cashing the old cheque - banks may refuse them if over six months old. Then, ask again for a reissue. Then proceed with the process @ForTheLoveOf mentions above.

 

[Bovverboy]

I think that a crucial fact here is probably the matter of whether or not you agreed to be paid by cheque. If you did, then I think it could be argued that you agreed to take the cheques in settlement of the debt. That would have been your privilege, you could have accepted anything, a sack of spuds, or whatever.
If the TOC decided that cheques were jolly well what you were going to get then there is every possibility that you could pursue the debt until the provisions of the Limitation Act kicked in, which, as AlterEgo implied above, is six years from the date of the debt becoming liable, or becoming known about, I'm not sure. A cheque is simply a promise to pay and a debt remains a debt until the cheque is converted into cash. The only catch there would be if it was provided for in the Delay Repay Charter that payment could be made by cheque.

 

[Manxmaninexile]

Thanks for replies so far.

I've looked at the National Rail T&Cs (s. 31.1?) and also at the TOC's passenger charter. Neither seem to have any provision to say that expired cheques can't be reissued, so I'll go back to customer services. (I suspect that they may not know that cheques can be reissued).

I'm interested that ForTheLoveOf suggests that it is a legal entitlement, in which case it's not at the TOC's discretion and (in theory at least) represents an enforceable debt.

I'm paying some other cheques in today (including two of my wife's reissued dividend cheques!) so I'll confirm whether the bank will accept the two expired cheques - I think they won't on past form. (The cheques don't have a "present before" date on the face of them whereas the dividend cheques clearly say they need to be presented within 12 months. Interestingly, when you telephone the company that issue the dividend cheques, one of the automated options is for the reissue of unpaid cheques!).

Thanks again.

(PS - I agree with other posters that the cheque is a promise to pay a debt, and that the debt isn't cleared until the cheque is paid in).

PPS - I did specifically ask for a cheque.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I'm interested that ForTheLoveOf suggests that it is a legal entitlement, in which case it's not at the TOC's discretion and (in theory at least) represents an enforceable debt.

It's defined in the NRCoT as a right so there is no question about a legal entitlement (not to mention the application of S50 CRA). However, merely because there is a legal entitlement, it does not automatically flow that there is (at this point and in these circumstances) an enforceable debt. It will depend very much on the specifics of what was said or promised in the Charter and in your application for compensation.

(PS - I agree with other posters that the cheque is a promise to pay a debt, and that the debt isn't cleared until the cheque is paid in).

I'm afraid I don't think it is quite that simple! Consider the case if, for example, you opted for payment to your PayPal account, they paid it into your PayPal account, but then PayPal refused to pay the money out to you. Would they still be liable? I'd have thought not. So it's a question of where it lies between a straightforward case of "it's not been paid at all" and the above example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You might want to try paying them in anyway. While they technically expire at 6 months old, in practice the date is often not checked.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm afraid I don't think it is quite that simple! Consider the case if, for example, you opted for payment to your PayPal account, they paid it into your PayPal account, but then PayPal refused to pay the money out to you. Would they still be liable? I'd have thought not. So it's a question of where it lies between a straightforward case of "it's not been paid at all" and the above example.

It really is simple. A cheque is not a settlement of a debt until it is cleared! Simply having it in your hand isn't clearing the debt.

If the TOC pay it into a bank account of your choosing or Paypal or Western Union and the they then refuse to release funds, then the TOC has discharged the debt (assuming the funds weren't returned to them).

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

It really is simple. A cheque is not a settlement of a debt until it is cleared! Simply having it in your hand isn't clearing the debt.

If the TOC pay it into a bank account of your choosing or Paypal or Western Union and the they then refuse to release funds, then the TOC has discharged the debt (assuming the funds weren't returned to them).

I agree, I would tend to side on this view, but I just gave the example to show that it's not always as clearcut as it might seem!

 

[thejuggler]

Use an ATM to pay them in - I have done so with well overdate cheques and a premium bond cheque which I forgot to sign. Both were cashed.

 

[Manxmaninexile]

The bank won't let me pay them in.

I could try paying in at an ATM, but... I don't want the cheques out of my possession until I've got some sort of resolution.

I agree it's not clear cut. I'm pretty certain they can, and should, reissue the cheques, but I don't know for sure. I'll go back to customer services at least once more, and raise a complaint if I'm not getting anywhere.

Thanks again.

 

[robbeech]

They’ve done their bit by sending you the cheques. I see no issue with them reissuing them but why should they do that for free? If not you could have them reissuing cheques every 6 months for the rest of eternity which is unfair.
I’ve paid cheques in well after the 6 months both at the counter and using the machines in the bank. Never had one rejected. If a person at your bank has refused then I suggest seeing a different person at the bank or going to a different branch (I appreciate that’s not always possible).

The concept of sending a letter before action when you’ve not bothered / had the chance to pay in the cheques they sent is beyond what my business mind can begin to comprehend. Of course, I understand some complications if you asked for RTV or a bacs transfer.
If you bought some milk with an acceptable use by date on it but just didn’t drink it would you expect Tesco (other supermarkets are available) to give you more of it for free and would you consider sending them a letter before action if you didn’t?

 

[MichaelAMW]

I think a sensible person would point out that the £26 was clearly of little importance to you, given how long you left it, so you shouldn't be putting the TOC to a load of trouble that arises from your failure to pay your cheques in.

RTVs are only valid a year, so there is clearly a reasonable limit to redemption of delay-repay. You've gone beyond that point.

 

[Belperpete]

I do have some sympathy with the TOC here, as cancelling and reissuing a cheque can be a costly and time consuming process. However, if they have not warned you about the time limit, then they must shoulder some blame. If as you say the cheques don't have a "present before" date on them, and provided that you weren't told during the delay repay process about any time limit or refusal to reissue (e.g. in the covering letter sent with the cheques) then I don't see that the TOC has much grounds to refuse. In particular, if you have some dividend cheques in your hand which as you say have a 12 month expiry, then it is not unreasonable to expect the same applies to your delay cheques (particularly as RTVs have a 12 month validity). I appreciate that in your case the cheques are well over 12 months, but if you have some cheques that clearly state they are valid for 12 months, how can you be expected to know these others that don't say anything have an even shorter expiry.

The critical thing here is not your bank, but if the issuing bank will honour them. If you explicitly ask your bank, you will be told their policy which will be to refuse them as they don't want all the hassle involved in dealing with cheques that might bounce. So, as others have suggested, present them in a way that your bank can't refuse them, using an ATM (preferably one that can read the cheque itself, not one that just stores it until a cashier can process it). Once it is in the system, it is then easier for your bank to try and process the transaction as normal, and as others have suggested it may well go through (particularly for such a small sum in banking terms). If the issuing bank does bounce the cheques, then your bank should return them to you, and you can then complain to the TOC that their cheques haven't been honoured. Just be sure that your bank won't charge you for presenting a cheque that is subsequently bounced!

 

[AlterEgo]

Just a question - is this a TOC which now issues payments by direct deposit/BACS?

 

[LowLevel]

Given their admin fee for changing a ticket is £10 per ticket you'd be left with 6 quid if they did it on the same terms. A quick search online suggests that £10 is a common and reasonable amount. I imagine a cheque is more involved to change than a ticket so I'd just propose a still reasonable fee of £15 per cheque and you then owe me £2

If I was a business I'd be less than pleased with someone popping up after 2 years and saying 'I've messed this up, sort it out will you' over such a trivial amount.

Try and pay them in at an ATM which often works or write off a trivial sum you had forgotten you had and move on with your life.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Perhaps, but if the Courts saw it that way then the statute of limitations for debts wouldn't be the current 6 years, so....

 

[MotCO]

I always understood that cheques had a 'life' of 6 months. Is this enshrined in law or just the accepted norm? How come dividend cheques are valid for 12 months? If there is no legal time limit then, as others have suggested, just try and pay it in at a bank, preferably by automated means.

 

[Manxmaninexile]

Given their admin fee for changing a ticket is £10 per ticket you'd be left with 6 quid if they did it on the same terms. A quick search online suggests that £10 is a common and reasonable amount. I imagine a cheque is more involved to change than a ticket so I'd just propose a still reasonable fee of £15 per cheque and you then owe me £2

If I was a business I'd be less than pleased with someone popping up after 2 years and saying 'I've messed this up, sort it out will you' over such a trivial amount.

Try and pay them in at an ATM which often works or write off a trivial sum you had forgotten you had and move on with your life.

Thanks. Are you saying the admin fee is £10? The dividend cheques I referred to clearly have an expiry date on them and state that there will be a fee payable for reissue. The delay repay cheques are silent on both these matters. (As are the National Rail T&Cs and the TOC's customer charter). Should customer services have told me that they could be reissued for a fee?

I'm sure that TOCs have sufficiently sophisticated accounting systems to bung a couple of unpaid cheques into a suspense/miscellaneous creditors account for six years. Six quid might make all the difference to my life!

(Also, if I were a proper business, I'd want to keep my customers happy...).

EDIT: And yes, it is a trivial amount (although some customers may disagree), and yes, it is my own fault, but this must happen quite frequently and I was wondering what the answer was. It would seem no-one knows.

 

[Qwerty133]

Cheque processing is currently going through a major overhaul in most banks and from what I've heard its not exactly hard to get fraudulent cheques through at the minute so a £13 cheque that is out of date is almost certainly going to be paid (in fact for a cheque so small it is unlikely that anyone will even look at the date) if you pay it in through a machine or mobile app. Banks are too busy dealing with cheques being presented both on the app and in person being accepted as well as other fraudulent methods meaning that the same cheque (well cheque number) is often being paid on several occasions.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The real world answer? It's six quid, and it's your own fault for not getting your finger out when you were sent the cheque. Forget it.

The theoretical answer? You need to consider
- the law of the land regarding cheques
- the policy and contract terms of the bank that issued the cheque
- the policy and contract terms of the company that wrote the cheque
- the policy and contract terms of the bank that receives the cheque

We're only likely to know about the policy and contract terms of the railway company who wrote the cheque. We might be able to speculate on the law. But there are so many banks potentially involved in issuing and receiving the cheque, each with their own different rules, that ultimately all we can do is guess at what the answer should be.

Which brings us back to the real world answer. Forget it and move on.

 

[Tom B]

I believe that the 6 month limit is more an extreme discouragement by the staff, to avoid becoming embroiled in a cheque bouncing if the person who wrote it now has insufficient funds etc. Someone who I don't see often wrote me a cheque and held onto it until I next saw them, this took it over the 6 months. The bank initially were reluctant to allow me to present it, but after I explained the circumstances they did allow it.

 

[NeilWatson]

FAQ from:
https://www.chequeandcredit.co.uk/information-hub/faqs/cheques-and-cheque-clearing

Q: Is it true that cheques are only valid for 6 months?

A: No. A cheque is valid for as long as the debt between the two parties (i.e. the person writing the cheque and the person they give it to) exists. In other words, cheques don’t have an expiry date. However, it is common banking practice to reject cheques that are over six months old to protect the person who has written the cheque, in case the payment has been made another way or the cheque has been lost or stolen. This six-month timeframe is at the discretion of individual banks. It should not be assumed that cheques older than six months would automatically be rejected as the only definite way to cancel a cheque is for the person who wrote it to request that a stop be placed on it. If you have a cheque that you want to pay in that is more than six months old, your best course of action is to not pay it in and instead obtain a replacement from the person who gave it to you. Where there is a dispute, a cheque remains legally valid in order to provide proof of the existence of a debt for a period of six years, which is the Statute of Limitations.

The Cheque and Credit Clearing Company Limited (C&CCC) is a wholly owned subsidiary of the new home for UK retail payments, Pay.UK. The C&CCC managed the cheque and credit clearing system in England and Wales from 1985 and in Scotland from 1996. Since its launch in October 2017 the company also managed the Image Clearing System, which enables digital images of cheques to be exchanged between banks and building societies across the whole of the UK for clearing and settlement.

As well as clearing sterling cheques drawn on UK bank accounts and other eligible debit items (bankers’ drafts, postal orders, warrants, government payable orders and travellers’ cheques) the paper clearing system and the Image Clearing System process bill payments (credits) accompanied by cash or cheques.

The oversight, systemic risk management and strategic direction of the running and managing of the cheque paper and cheque image clearing systems has been handed over to the board of Pay.UK as the System Operator.

All payments continue to be processed as usual. As a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pay.UK, the C&CCC will continue to support the paper clearing system for cheques and credits and the Image Clearing System (ICS).

 

[reb0118]

Have you asked the payer if they would accept the original cheques if presented through the usual channels. If you could get proof of that then your own bank may be more amenable in accepting them.

 

[jumble]

I believe that the 6 month limit is more an extreme discouragement by the staff, to avoid becoming embroiled in a cheque bouncing if the person who wrote it now has insufficient funds etc. Someone who I don't see often wrote me a cheque and held onto it until I next saw them, this took it over the 6 months. The bank initially were reluctant to allow me to present it, but after I explained the circumstances they did allow it.

My surname has often been misspelled on cheques and I have had branches of my bank query it on many occasions over the last 30 years
I have always asked them to put the cheque into the internal post and let my own bank manager ( who probably now does not exist) decide what to do.
At this point they have always accepted the cheque.