I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.


Probably a new bank employee who has never seen a cheque before. ;-)

Tim

On 26/11/2015 18:41, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.


I have a couple of times with LLoyds. One time I stormed into my branch
demanding an explanation and they showed me the cheque and the sig they
had on record, I have to admit there wasn't much resemblance. Must have
been having a senior moment when I signed it.

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 18:41:44 +0000, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.

Wasn't Lloyds, was it? I gather they're having some liquidity issues at
the moment (probably too much exposure to Deutschebank). Anyway, I only
keep enough in my account with them to pay day to day bills just in case
they're seriously in the sh1t, even though they deduct 20 notes a month
for the privilege.

Cursitor Doom laid this down on his screen :
Wasn't Lloyds, was it?

No, TSB.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

No sounds a bit worrying as a person who cannot see, I often get trusted
people to write mine and then sign them. I doubt very much if my signature
would be much like my original one now.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the signature
not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd thing to do,
when they could have just rung me to check whether the cheque had been
written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Brian-Gaff explained :
No sounds a bit worrying as a person who cannot see, I often get trusted
people to write mine and then sign them. I doubt very much if my signature
would be much like my original one now.
Brian

In the phone call I made to my bank, they said the signature on the
cheque did not match the one they had on file for me, hence the
rejection. This morning I received a letter from my bank which said it
had been rejected because they did not actually have a copy of my
signature on file at all. Curious and curiouser.

Maybe they didn't have a file copy to compare it against, but I have
sent them numerous documents recently which bore my signature.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On 26/11/2015 18:41, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

That is how they do it though. Use other means of payment instead.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.

It is above the checking before clearing threshold and your signature
did not match the one they had on file closely enough. Once you have one
cheque bounce they will scrutinise *every* cheque more closely.

Use electronic payment and it isn't a problem.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 20:55:18 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 26/11/2015 18:41, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

That is how they do it though. Use other means of payment instead.

I tried on-line banking last night but I can't pay a person more than £5k, so saturday morning i have to take my passport to the bank (santander).

On 27/11/2015 13:58, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2015 20:55:18 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 26/11/2015 18:41, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

That is how they do it though. Use other means of payment instead.

I tried on-line banking last night but I can't pay a person more than £5k,
so saturday morning i have to take my passport to the bank (santander).

All banks have an online transfer limit of some sort either daily and/or
single transaction. They also warn you now about classic vishing scams
if you appear to be moving a large sum to a new account.

Nationwide will let you do up to £10k per transaction and as many
transactions as you like provided the balance is up to taking the hit.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

whisky-dave wrote
Martin Brown wrote
Harry Bloomfield wrote

I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an
odd thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether
the cheque had been written by me.

That is how they do it though. Use other means of payment instead.

I tried on-line banking last night but I can't pay a person more than £5k,

How often do you want to do that ?

On the odd occasion that I have need to do that, I just split the payment
into two.

Not necessarily that viable with business transactions
tho when the other end is automated etc.

so saturday morning i have to take my passport to the bank (santander).

We have to do that stuff when opening the account,
so don't need to do that to use online banking.

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the signature not matching
the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd thing to do, when they could have just
rung me to check whether the cheque had been written by me.

Not if you were away on holiday, and the person who stole your
chequebook might also have had access to your phone. Or had also
stolen your mobile, if appropriate.


Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before, certainly not for
this reason.

I print all mine out, although only for a small number of
regular payees with their own templates. The signature
is a picture file, and so identical every time


michael adams

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the signature
not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd thing to do,
when they could have just rung me to check whether the cheque had been
written by me.

Not if you were away on holiday, and the person who stole your
chequebook might also have had access to your phone. Or had also
stolen your mobile, if appropriate.


Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.

I print all mine out, although only for a small number of
regular payees with their own templates. The signature
is a picture file, and so identical every time

I haven't bothered with a cheque in a hell of a long time now.

The last time I did was with a dinosaur operation that can't
take cards. I used to keep just one cheque in the wallet for
just that sort of event and it was pretty dog eared by the
time that I needed to use it, and he was pretty dubious
about accepting it, but in the end he did and it worked fine.

On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 6:41:47 PM UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Did they charge you for the privilege ?

It happens that fred formulated :
On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 6:41:47 PM UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Did they charge you for the privilege ?

No indication of any such charge yet from my account. If they try, I
will be straight on the phone threatening to take my accounts
elsewhere.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On 27/11/2015 10:54, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
It happens that fred formulated :
On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 6:41:47 PM UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an
odd thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether
the cheque had been written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.

Did they charge you for the privilege ?

No indication of any such charge yet from my account. If they try, I
will be straight on the phone threatening to take my accounts elsewhere.

They will charge whoever presented the cheque in payment a fee ISTR £12.
(or something like that maybe bank dependent)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 10:54:34 +0000, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

It happens that fred formulated :
On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 6:41:47 PM UTC, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:
I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Did they charge you for the privilege ?

No indication of any such charge yet from my account. If they try, I
will be straight on the phone threatening to take my accounts elsewhere.

That'll give 'em a good laugh. There are so few independent clearing
banks around nowadays that if they lose your account, some other poor sod
****ed off with their own useless bank will open up a new account with
them. You can't win.

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 20:57:38 +0000, Jonno wrote:

Lloyds bank by any chance? I had the same 2 weeks ago. It's an attempt
to stop us using cheques.

They don't want us using cash, either! What bloody use are they these
days?

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 18:41 26 Nov 2015, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.


Most cheques are not scrutinised at all for the correct signature but a
high value cheque like yours probably warranted a closer look.

If it was me, I would contact my bank and berate them for not realising
that a signature changes with time and for not contacting me before
declining to honour the cheque.

If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret
that as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed
under duress. Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put them
under even more duress to give correct answers to security questions
over the phone.


michael adams

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 18:41 26 Nov 2015, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.


Most cheques are not scrutinised at all for the correct signature but a
high value cheque like yours probably warranted a closer look.

If it was me, I would contact my bank and berate them for not realising
that a signature changes with time and for not contacting me before
declining to honour the cheque.

If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret that
as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed under
duress.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

If it was signed under duress, why would the person under duress
sign it anything like they normally sign it ? And if there was something
else with their signature already on it, it would make no sense to
deliberately try to make it different enough for the bank to notice
but not those holding a gun to the signer's head etc.

And I just don’t believe that any real crim would ever get
someone to sign a cheque under duress anyway, because
they could just call the bank and tell them to stop the
cheque when the crims had gone off with the cheque.

Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put them under even
more duress to give correct answers to security questions over the phone.

Rather unlikely the crims would still be there
when the cheque is getting process by the bank.

You're completely off with the ****ing fairys, again.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 18:41 26 Nov 2015, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.


Most cheques are not scrutinised at all for the correct signature but a
high value cheque like yours probably warranted a closer look.

If it was me, I would contact my bank and berate them for not realising
that a signature changes with time and for not contacting me before
declining to honour the cheque.

If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret that as it being
poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed under duress.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

If it was signed under duress, why would the person under duress
sign it anything like they normally sign it ?

They didn't.

Which happens to be the whole point of the thread, in case you hadn't
noticed.

Next !!!


michael adams

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 18:41 26 Nov 2015, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.


Most cheques are not scrutinised at all for the correct signature but a
high value cheque like yours probably warranted a closer look.

If it was me, I would contact my bank and berate them for not realising
that a signature changes with time and for not contacting me before
declining to honour the cheque.

If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret that
as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed under
duress.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

If it was signed under duress, why would the person under duress sign it
anything like they normally sign it ?

They didn't.

Which happens to be the whole point of the thread, in case you hadn't
noticed.

Next !!!

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

In message , michael adams
writes

If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret
that as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed
under duress. Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put them
under even more duress to give correct answers to security questions
over the phone.

This can create a Catch 22 situation, at least in this house. I was
phoned a while ago from some chap claiming to be from Visa, regarding a
query on my account. He immediately launched into the security bit to
verify I was who I said I was. At that point, I said hold on, you're
phoning me, I'm not phoning you. How do I know you are from Visa? I
asked him to confirm the last transaction on my account. He refused,
and insisted I answer his questions. I refused, and told him Visa had
my postal address and e-mail address, and suggested he use those. I
still don't know what the call was about, or whether it was genuine.
--
Graeme

On 27/11/15 07:27, News wrote:
In message , michael adams
writes

If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret
that as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed
under duress. Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put
them
under even more duress to give correct answers to security questions
over the phone.

This can create a Catch 22 situation, at least in this house. I was
phoned a while ago from some chap claiming to be from Visa, regarding a
query on my account. He immediately launched into the security bit to
verify I was who I said I was. At that point, I said hold on, you're
phoning me, I'm not phoning you. How do I know you are from Visa? I
asked him to confirm the last transaction on my account. He refused,
and insisted I answer his questions. I refused, and told him Visa had
my postal address and e-mail address, and suggested he use those. I
still don't know what the call was about, or whether it was genuine.

He was indeed an amateur then.

I've had calls from a couple of banks (RBS Credit card and Nationwide)
and in both cases, I said: sorry - I don't know who you are.

They said: phone the number on the back of your card, and (depending on
bank) give this reference, or just say you were called - the record of
why we want to talk to you is on the computer.

Which is the correct approach

On 27/11/2015 08:43, Tim Watts wrote:
On 27/11/15 07:27, News wrote:

[snip]

They said: phone the number on the back of your card, and (depending on
bank) give this reference, or just say you were called - the record of
why we want to talk to you is on the computer.

Which is the correct approach

If ringing the bank back, when you pick the phone up, make sure you hear
a dial tone first. There is a scam doing the rounds where the scammer
calls, tells you to call the bank back, you hang up, he doesn't, the
line is still open, you think you've dialled the bank, but you''re still
talking to the same scammer....

On 27/11/15 09:03, Allan wrote:
On 27/11/2015 08:43, Tim Watts wrote:
On 27/11/15 07:27, News wrote:

[snip]

They said: phone the number on the back of your card, and (depending on
bank) give this reference, or just say you were called - the record of
why we want to talk to you is on the computer.

Which is the correct approach

If ringing the bank back, when you pick the phone up, make sure you hear
a dial tone first. There is a scam doing the rounds where the scammer
calls, tells you to call the bank back, you hang up, he doesn't, the
line is still open, you think you've dialled the bank, but you''re still
talking to the same scammer....


Very good warning - I'd forgotten about that. Little more difficult to
pull on mobiles, so perhaps the motto is: call back on your mobile?

Or ring the speaking clock (does that still exist?) first to prove the
line is clear.

Allan pretended :
On 27/11/2015 08:43, Tim Watts wrote:
On 27/11/15 07:27, News wrote:

[snip]

They said: phone the number on the back of your card, and (depending on
bank) give this reference, or just say you were called - the record of
why we want to talk to you is on the computer.

Which is the correct approach

If ringing the bank back, when you pick the phone up, make sure you hear a
dial tone first. There is a scam doing the rounds where the scammer calls,
tells you to call the bank back, you hang up, he doesn't, the line is still
open, you think you've dialled the bank, but you''re still talking to the
same scammer....

No point in relying on the dial tone, the scammers now can simulate
that too. Use another phone to ring the bank back, or wait a while and
phone a friend to ensure they have cleared off the line, then your
bank.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:03:54 +0000, Allan wrote:

On 27/11/2015 08:43, Tim Watts wrote:
On 27/11/15 07:27, News wrote:

[snip]

They said: phone the number on the back of your card, and (depending on
bank) give this reference, or just say you were called - the record of
why we want to talk to you is on the computer.

Which is the correct approach

If ringing the bank back, when you pick the phone up, make sure you hear
a dial tone first. There is a scam doing the rounds where the scammer
calls, tells you to call the bank back, you hang up, he doesn't, the
line is still open, you think you've dialled the bank, but you''re still
talking to the same scammer....

Dial tone is no guarantee. Use a different phone, or call Aunty Mabel
(and speak to her) first.

I can just use a different phone - they are all VoIP.

On 27/11/2015 08:43, Tim Watts wrote:
On 27/11/15 07:27, News wrote:
In message , michael adams
writes

If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret
that as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed
under duress. Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put
them
under even more duress to give correct answers to security questions
over the phone.

This can create a Catch 22 situation, at least in this house. I was
phoned a while ago from some chap claiming to be from Visa, regarding a
query on my account. He immediately launched into the security bit to
verify I was who I said I was. At that point, I said hold on, you're
phoning me, I'm not phoning you. How do I know you are from Visa? I
asked him to confirm the last transaction on my account. He refused,
and insisted I answer his questions. I refused, and told him Visa had
my postal address and e-mail address, and suggested he use those. I
still don't know what the call was about, or whether it was genuine.

He was indeed an amateur then.

Most of the sales droids are. Their script doesn't cater at all for
people who have been trained to resist social engineering attacks.

I've had calls from a couple of banks (RBS Credit card and Nationwide)
and in both cases, I said: sorry - I don't know who you are.

They said: phone the number on the back of your card, and (depending on
bank) give this reference, or just say you were called - the record of
why we want to talk to you is on the computer.

Which is the correct approach

That is also *exactly* what the vishers say too!

They then keep the line open and play dial tone to you. You must dial
some other number to confirm that your phone line isn't compromised!

Or use another phone entirely.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 27/11/2015 07:27, News wrote:
In message , michael adams
writes

If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret
that as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed
under duress. Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put
them
under even more duress to give correct answers to security questions
over the phone.

This can create a Catch 22 situation, at least in this house. I was
phoned a while ago from some chap claiming to be from Visa, regarding a
query on my account. He immediately launched into the security bit to
verify I was who I said I was. At that point, I said hold on, you're
phoning me, I'm not phoning you. How do I know you are from Visa? I

It wasn't genuine unless either you were late making a payment in which
case they will cold call like that and look for all the world like a
vishing attack or your card has been compromised where they will ring
back after a supervisor has agreed how to prove they are genuine.

asked him to confirm the last transaction on my account. He refused,
and insisted I answer his questions. I refused, and told him Visa had
my postal address and e-mail address, and suggested he use those. I
still don't know what the call was about, or whether it was genuine.

I always insist that cold callers purporting to be my bank or credit
card confirm the first line of my address and we deadlock. If it is
important they can either put it in writing or ring me back when they
have worked out how to prove to me they are really genuine. The script
droids always sound really hurt when I tell them I don't trust them.

Heaven help the average punter.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:

I always insist that cold callers purporting to be my bank or credit
card confirm the first line of my address and we deadlock

Most of my cold callers already know it, though I refuse to
acknowledge that any of the details they quote are accurate.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On 27/11/2015 09:00, Martin Brown wrote:

I always insist that cold callers purporting to be my bank or credit
card confirm the first line of my address and we deadlock.

My bank has recently taken to informing me of the month of my birth and
then asking me for day and year. Not wholly secure, but better than nothing.

--
F

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
...
On 27/11/2015 09:00, Martin Brown wrote:

I always insist that cold callers purporting to be my bank or credit
card confirm the first line of my address and we deadlock.

My bank has recently taken to informing me of the month of my birth and then asking me
for day and year. Not wholly secure, but better than nothing.

--
F


So the bank chose a method whereby a random guess by a fraudster
has a one in twelve chance of being correct. As against a one in
365 chance of guessing the right day; and say a one in 70 chance
of guessing the right year.

Then on the one in twelve ocassions on which the fraudster
guesses the right month, the customer kindly provides him with
the one in 365 day, and the one in 70 year of his birth.

Presumably the numpty who dreamt that one up got a bonus for
their pains.


michael adams

....

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
...
On 27/11/2015 09:00, Martin Brown wrote:

I always insist that cold callers purporting to be my bank or credit
card confirm the first line of my address and we deadlock.

My bank has recently taken to informing me of the month of my birth and
then asking me for day and year. Not wholly secure, but better than
nothing.

Lousy now that so many have that on their facebook page.

Jonno wrote:
michael adams scribbled


"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 18:41 26 Nov 2015, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.


Most cheques are not scrutinised at all for the correct signature but a
high value cheque like yours probably warranted a closer look.

If it was me, I would contact my bank and berate them for not realising
that a signature changes with time and for not contacting me before
declining to honour the cheque.

If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret
that as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed
under duress. Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put them
under even more duress to give correct answers to security questions
over the phone.


No bank will ask security questions over the phone. As for keeping
someone under duress while a cheque clears...



They will if you are the one ringing them.

"Jonno" wrote in message
...
michael adams scribbled


"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 18:41 26 Nov 2015, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.


Most cheques are not scrutinised at all for the correct signature but a
high value cheque like yours probably warranted a closer look.

If it was me, I would contact my bank and berate them for not realising
that a signature changes with time and for not contacting me before
declining to honour the cheque.

If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret
that as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed
under duress. Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put
them
under even more duress to give correct answers to security questions
over the phone.


No bank will ask security questions over the phone.

Mine did. When they called me trying to flog me some ****
in an attempt to check that it was me they were talking to.

Management couldn't even see the problem with that approach when
I rubbed their nose in the stupidity of what they were doing either

As for keeping someone under duress while a cheque clears...

Yeah, completely off with the fairys on that one.

On Friday, 27 November 2015 09:32:40 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
...

No bank will ask security questions over the phone.

Mine did. When they called me trying to flog me some ****
in an attempt to check that it was me they were talking to.

Management couldn't even see the problem with that approach when

I've had the same experience. Shocking absence of even basic security


NT

On 27/11/2015 07:57, Jonno wrote:
michael adams scribbled


"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 18:41 26 Nov 2015, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.


Most cheques are not scrutinised at all for the correct signature but a
high value cheque like yours probably warranted a closer look.

If it was me, I would contact my bank and berate them for not realising
that a signature changes with time and for not contacting me before
declining to honour the cheque.

If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret
that as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed
under duress. Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put them
under even more duress to give correct answers to security questions
over the phone.


No bank will ask security questions over the phone. As for keeping
someone under duress while a cheque clears...

Yeah right. Have you ever tried to do a large transaction in person paid
with Barclaycard where the merchant has to ask you the droids computer
chosen security questions - we have had some totally unanswerable ones
and the large purchase was the final pre-install payment of a fitted
kitchen at the card holders address.

They included:

Q: Name a street connected to your street?
A: They didn't like A19 as an answer (no street names here)

Q: Name the hotel where you stayed in Chester last year?
A: We didn't stay in Chester last year.

Digging out the statements we found the correct answer to the second
question was after the works Xmas do at "Lumley Castle, County Durham"
in Chester *LE STREET* my emphasis - a hell of a long way from Chester!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"Jonno" wrote in message ...
michael adams scribbled


"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 18:41 26 Nov 2015, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.


Most cheques are not scrutinised at all for the correct signature but a
high value cheque like yours probably warranted a closer look.

If it was me, I would contact my bank and berate them for not realising
that a signature changes with time and for not contacting me before
declining to honour the cheque.

If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret
that as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed
under duress. Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put them
under even more duress to give correct answers to security questions
over the phone.


No bank will ask security questions over the phone. As for keeping
someone under duress while a cheque clears...

If they had sufficient bank accounts to make it worthwhile, why not ?
After all, if they lived in Midsomer or maybe Oxford, they'd simply
whack them over the head afterwards, and maybe bury them in the
garden. In fact if they were really clever, like all the tv murderers
are, they'd get them to sign a series of post dated cheques going into
the future; so as to disguise the actual date of the murder.


michael adams

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Jonno" wrote in message
...
michael adams scribbled


"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 18:41 26 Nov 2015, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I wrote a cheque and my bank bounced the £4k cheque based on the
signature not matching the one they had on record for me. Seems an
odd
thing to do, when they could have just rung me to check whether the
cheque had been written by me.

Comments please, I have never had one of my cheque bounced before,
certainly not for this reason.


Most cheques are not scrutinised at all for the correct signature but
a
high value cheque like yours probably warranted a closer look.

If it was me, I would contact my bank and berate them for not
realising
that a signature changes with time and for not contacting me before
declining to honour the cheque.

If it was a very poor match, then the bank might possibly interpret
that as it being poor on purpose; as a result of it having been signed
under duress. Phoning the customer under such circumstances might put
them
under even more duress to give correct answers to security questions
over the phone.


No bank will ask security questions over the phone. As for keeping
someone under duress while a cheque clears...

If they had sufficient bank accounts to make it worthwhile, why not ?

Because it dramatically increases the risk of getting caught doing that,
stupid.

After all, if they lived in Midsomer or maybe Oxford, they'd simply whack
them over the head afterwards, and maybe bury them in the garden.

Corse no one would ever notice that happening, eh ?

In fact if they were really clever, like all the tv murderers are, they'd
get them to sign a series of post dated cheques going into the future; so
as to disguise the actual date of the murder.

Like I said, completely off with the ****ing fairys, as always.