Virgin trains cheque (expired) - How and where to get a new cheque?

[skyhigh]

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.

But if (as it appears here) the cheque is issued as a goodwill gesture, does a debt exist?

 

[WesternLancer]

"Is it true that cheques are only valid for six months?
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."

Thanks - v interesting to read that, a useful link.

Would another option be for the OP to ask Virgin Group if they would consider making an international money transfer for the sum (or whatever these things are) direct to their swiss bank account? Assuming they do not/did not have a UK bank account they would have had problems with the cheque right from the start, even before it became more than 6 months since it was issued, in that money shop places would probably not have accepted it form a non UK resident as @AlterEgo explains.

 

[sor]

Everywhere I've worked in customer service it just lands on customer service to sort out as normal but the reply got signed as "on behalf of CEO" The world and his dog write to directors thinking they get better service. Realistically the sheer number they get means it's simply impossible for them to deal with them. The only difference is it takes a bit longer to resolve as it's gone round the internal mail/forwarded email. But customers often see this delay as the director sorting it out!

I'd say it depends on the company. I'm aware of some where the CEO can at least see the emails if they wish, and the "executive escalations team" (or other similar wording) actually does have more power and authority than the standard phone drone.

It certainly worked for my dad & a very well known company, after battling with standard customer services for far too long "emailing" the "CEO" did the trick and got someone who made things happen and provided significant compensation for the hassle. Obviously no one expects an actual response from the CEO, though it can happen (e.g. the infamous Steve Jobs "you're holding it wrong")

 

[island]

On the flip side, I've worked for companies who consider customers who go straight to the CEO arrogant and self-important, and complaint emails that come to them get checked to see whether they're an escalation of a situation that the customer has progressed through normal customer service channels. If they are they're dealt with (by a customer service manager). If not, they get a fake polite reply a week later to the effect of "we see you've not given our excellent customer service team a chance, their phone number is X".