New bank rules on cashing checks?

[techs]

I have a few customers who are elderly, living on a fixed income, etc who I have write out their checks to me personally. Then I go to their banks and cash them. I do this rarely, just to make sure I don't get a 25.00 bounced check fee on, say, a 20.00 check. Then I deposit the cash in my business account.

I had two small checks sitting around for about 3 weeks. Like 30 dollars and 35 dollars.

I go to the first bank drive thru, like always, and they say a new policy requires me to come inside the bank. No problem.

I go to the second bank and they have a new policy. First I have to come in the bank and they have to take a fingerprint. Plus there is a 5.00 fee.


Anyone else seeing this kind of thing?
And I don't think banks understand the meaning of the "check". You should be able to go to the bank its drawn, provide i.d., and NOT be charged. Just my opinion.

 

[JJ650]

$5 fee for chashing checks? WTF?

Trying to get their mitts on as much cash as possible. What bank was this?

 

[techs]

$5 fee for chashing checks? WTF?

Trying to get their mitts on as much cash as possible. What bank was this?

Citizen's Bank.

 

[dullard]

And I don't think banks understand the meaning of the "check". You should be able to go to the bank its drawn, provide i.d., and NOT be charged. Just my opinion.

I think you don't understand the concept of a bank. They have extreme liabilities to make certain that the checks are valid and that they go to valid people. If anyone walks in the door with a check and tries to cash it, the bank is partially on the hook. You could have stolen those checks, scribbled a name (which would match the impression left from the previous check signing), walked in, and tried to steal someone else's money. The bank is then partially liable for the loss. They charge a fee to cover their losses.

If you used your own bank like banks intend you to do, then they can pull money out of your account if fraud was committed somewhere. When you just walk right in, they don't have that capability. They must then charge fees.

 

[wedi42]

let that bank know you will no longer take checks from their customers.
that usually works.

 

[Capt Caveman]

I have few customers who are elderly, living on a fixed income, etc who I have write out their checks to me personally. Then I go to their banks and cash them. I do this rarely, just to make sure I don't get a 25.00 bounced check fee on, say, a 20.00 check. Then I deposit the cash in my business account.

I had two small checks sitting around for about 3 weeks. Like 30 dollars and 35 dollars.

I go to the first bank drive thru, like always, and they say a new policy requires me to come inside the bank. No problem.

I go to the second bank and they have a new policy. First I have to come in the bank and they have to take a fingerprint. Plus there is a 5.00 fee.


Anyone else seeing this kind of thing?
And I don't think banks understand the meaning of the "check". You should be able to go to the bank its drawn, provide i.d., and NOT be charged. Just my opinion.

Usually, banks don't cash checks unless you have an account with them. Sounds like they're just offering the service for a fee now.

 

[techs]

Usually, banks don't cash checks unless you have an account with them. Sounds like they're just offering the service for a fee now.

But the person who wrote the check has a bank account so they can write a check. Its a piece of paper that SHOULD be payable on demand at the place that has the money backing it. The writers bank. And the person who wrote the check should have to pay any fees.

Of course, if they tried charging the check writer they would lose their customers.....

 

[FoBoT]

i had to do the fingerprint thing back in 1998

banks want to get rid of checks , they cost too much to process, hence the $5 fee

tell your customers it is cash only or else you are going to charge them (pass it on) $5 if they give you a check

 

[Phoenix86]

There should be 0 fees on a check cashed at the bank it was drafted at. You were given a check for $25 not $20.

 

[Phoenix86]

Usually, banks don't cash checks unless you have an account with them. Sounds like they're just offering the service for a fee now.

Of course they do.

The person who is being serviced is the account holder the check was drafted on, not the person cashing it. The account holder is already being charged fees to write checks.

 

[Capt Caveman]

But the person who wrote the check has a bank account so they can write a check. Its a piece of paper that SHOULD be payable on demand at the place that has the money backing it. The writers bank. And the person who wrote the check should have to pay any fees.

Of course, if they tried charging the check writer they would lose their customers.....

It helps prevent fraud and reduces/deters the need to have resources available to support non-account customers.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Of course they do.

The person who is being serviced is the account holder the check was drafted on, not the person cashing it. The account holder is already being charged fees to write checks.

All of my checking accounts charge me no fees.

 

[SunnyD]

If you're worried about your customers bouncing checks, then either deal in cash or don't deal at all.

Many banks now won't cash checks for non-clients. The finger print thing isn't new. And service fees - well how else do you think banks are going to make their money?

 

[xanis]

What the hell kind of bank are you with that they print you and charge a $5 fee to cash a personal check? Sounds like you need a new bank.

 

[PrinceofWands]

It's almost impossible to find a bank that doesn't charge now if you don't have an account there. It's not entirely new...been seeing it more and more over the last 5-10 years. Before that it was pretty rare though.

Personally I think about the MOST useful law I can imagine is one where the issuing bank MUST honor ANY check written by a member in good standing at no cost to the person cashing it. If the banks need to make money on that, they can frigging well charge members, lower interest paid, increase interest charged, or quite frankly do anything else they want that DOESN'T shaft people smart enough not to bank with them in the first place.

Either that, or just outlaw checks. They're useless now anyway. Debit/credit, cash, or money order/cashier check/traveller check.

 

[Acanthus]

I think you don't understand the concept of a bank. They have extreme liabilities to make certain that the checks are valid and that they go to valid people. If anyone walks in the door with a check and tries to cash it, the bank is partially on the hook. You could have stolen those checks, scribbled a name (which would match the impression left from the previous check signing), walked in, and tried to steal someone else's money. The bank is then partially liable for the loss. They charge a fee to cover their losses.

If you used your own bank like banks intend you to do, then they can pull money out of your account if fraud was committed somewhere. When you just walk right in, they don't have that capability. They must then charge fees.

They have an instant electronic verification system now, and if the check is large they can just call the customer. Bullshit.

 

[Phoenix86]

All of my checking accounts charge me no fees.

You are paying the bank in one form or another. Be that minimum limits, direct fees, whatever. You are the bank's customer, not the person cashing the check.

 

[Capt Caveman]

You are paying the bank in one form or another. Be that minimum limits, direct fees, whatever. You are the bank's customer, not the person cashing the check.

Nope. No minimum limits, direct fees, etc...

 

[Pantoot]

Personally I think about the MOST useful law I can imagine is one where the issuing bank MUST honor ANY check written by a member in good standing at no cost to the person cashing it.

Ooh, and write the law such that the bank is required to be open 24/7/365. In addition, they must staff the non-customer line with the hottest and most intelligent tellers. Naturally all of this must be 0 cost to the fellow who was smart enough to bank elsewhere.

 

[Phoenix86]

Nope. No minimum limits, direct fees, etc...

Direct deposit? These generally have -some- rule to "free" accounts which lets them make money somewhere.

If it's 100% free, no limits, I can understand the bank wanting to charge someone, the do have to make money. I just think that person should be the account holder...

I wouldn't accept a check from a bank wanting to charge me ($5 on a $25 is outrageous) making the account kinda worthless.

 

[ussfletcher]

Upon first read of the OP I thought he was saying that he had old people writing their fixed income checks over to him.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Ooh, and write the law such that the bank is required to be open 24/7/365. In addition, they must staff the non-customer line with the hottest and most intelligent tellers. Naturally all of this must be 0 cost to the fellow who was smart enough to bank elsewhere.

What does any of that have to do with anything?

Nothing I suggested would inhibit a bank from making money...it would just protect individuals who are not members of that bank in much the same way as all consumer protection services and laws do.

When a bank signs a customer and gives them an account, they're making a two way agreement that the bank will protect their money and handle all the clients financial transactions while the client is not supposed to write back checks. It's lending the integrity of the bank to the financial transactions of said client in exchange for the use of their money. When someone writes a bad check they are impugning the financial institution as well as themselves, but that's a matter between them and their bank. When a bank charges to cash THEIR OWN checks it's like saying: we don't really trust these people that have the account, and we don't like that we have to do the only thing a bank is chartered to do (process financial transactions). It tells the world that they are so fiscally insecure that they have to nickel and dime every possible transaction just to stay solvent. It degrades the client/bank relationship, the integrity of financial institutions as a whole, and quite honestly hurts society by siphoning funds from those who can least afford it - people who will then turn around and default on their own financial obligations, obtain government assistance, or turn to crime or abuse in frustration and desperation because they have no real alternatives. Not because of a few charges on checks (though that can add up quickly to be damaging to a small business owner), but because of the prevalent attitude of making money for the rich (or at least the investor) no matter what.

There is no inherent right to exploit others for personal profit. There is no honor or glory in trying to maximize profit at the expense of others. There is nothing wrong with making modest, reasonable profits in a fair manner that does not unduly exploit citizens as a result of the closed system they operate in.

 

[Pantoot]

What does any of that have to do with anything?

Nothing I suggested would inhibit a bank from making money...it would just protect individuals who are not members of that bank in much the same way as all consumer protection services and laws do.

There is no inherent right to exploit others for personal profit. There is no honor or glory in trying to maximize profit at the expense of others. There is nothing wrong with making modest, reasonable profits in a fair manner that does not unduly exploit citizens as a result of the closed system they operate in.

You have no right to banking services. Any of these banks that charge a fee would be happy to do it fee free if you open an account with them.

There is no exploitation, you want a service - you pay for the service.

The bank is not going to charge the account holder, they are interested in keeping their business. They will charge for the service to the person demanding it.

 

[Nitemare]

Never heard of a bank that charged for cashing checks if you or the writer of the check had an account there.

 

[PrinceofWands]

You have no right to banking services. Any of these banks that charge a fee would be happy to do it fee free if you open an account with them.

There is no exploitation, you want a service - you pay for the service.

The bank is not going to charge the account holder, they are interested in keeping their business. They will charge for the service to the person demanding it.

However, since there are a near infinite number of banks it is ridiculous to operate under that system since it would require every person to keep an account with at least dozens if not hundreds of banks to be able to cash even a majority of checks fee free...and in so doing they will be charged numerous other account fees costing them more in the long run.

IF you want to claim that banking is a privilege and not a right then you MUST mandate with government enforcement an alternative method of financial transaction...ie you MUST require that ALL transactions be accepted in a form other than through bank mediation - such as cash. The reason is that society is NOT at the mercy of business and industry...the individual citizen is ALWAYS to be protected against abuse and harm. This is the ONLY function of government.

It doesn't encourage one to open an account with the institution, it encourages one to refuse to do business with that institution in any way. They also then encourage others to not do business with them. This has the end result of reducing enrollments, and harming the bank.