Problems In Banking A Cheque That Was Missing Part Of The Full Name At NAB

LGingerWay on 13/02/2020 - 23:29
Last edited 14/02/2020 - 21:56 by 1 other user

Long story short.

Went to try and bank a cheque at Haymarket NAB today at around 2pm. They kept stating that because the cheque was crossed that it could not be banked as the account name was different. In that it was missing part of the full name that it wasn't the same person.

The following documentation influenced my old train of thought.

https://www.nab.com.au/personal/help-and-guidance/personal-b…

  • Effect of crossing

  • If you cross a cheque (by drawing two parallel lines from top to bottom across the front of the cheque), you are telling NAB not to cash it over the counter. The cheque therefore must be paid to a bank (e.g. into a customer's account). If NAB does cash a crossed cheque, it may be liable for any loss suffered by the true owner.

Now I can confirm the cheque I was holding in my hands didn't even have 'account payee only' or 'not negotiable' written on it.

In the end I decided to take our business to CBA instead and opened a new account.

Very Professional People at Chinatown CBA. They were able to apply some common sense to help us get what we wanted done.

Resolved

Financial

Related Stores

National Australia Bank Group (NAB)
National Australia Bank Group (NAB)

closed Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2020 - 23:32
    +35

    Just a heads up, this is ozbargain and not the compose section of your email that you were addresing to NAB's feedback department.

    Just in case you were not aware but otherwise, cool story.

    (Member since… ahhh. I fell for it.)

    • GingerWay on 13/02/2020 - 23:34

      Yeah, just thought to seek if anyone else has tasted such poor experiences.

      I'm not exactly sure how to take the complaint further at the moment, or whether I can recover any costs.

      • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2020 - 23:34
        +1

        What costs?

        • GingerWay on 13/02/2020 - 23:34

          Stat Dec and Certified Copies of Documents…

          • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2020 - 23:37

            @GingerWay: That is information not included in your story. How is this related to your story?

            • GingerWay on 13/02/2020 - 23:38

              @[Deactivated]: Well apparently all this extraneous information wasn't even required, but I had to get it done because of the impression that was created by the people at NAB.

              It was related into determining whether the person on the cheque, was the same person who was on the bank account…

              • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2020 - 23:42
                +8

                @GingerWay:

                because of the impression that was created by the people at NAB.

                The impression?

                You do not get compensated for those. You shouldn't go around making Stat Decs and Certified Copies because of impressions.

                Impressions. It makes an imp out of ress and… nvm.

                • GingerWay on 13/02/2020 - 23:46
                  -4

                  @[Deactivated]: Yeah, I guess I messed up then.

                  I had a limited timeframe to get what I needed done. I can't go into the further details about it at the moment, but time was critical.

                  Only can sing praise to CBA for helping me through this.

                  What would other customers do? They would probably do exactly as I did, but that's probably irrelevant. I'm just going to ignore the costs and hopefully they just retrain the staff to the actual protocols.

                  Anyway, thanks for your comments. It has been good to get another perspective. I think I can actually get some sleep now. It's been a terrible day…

                  • [Deactivated] on 14/02/2020 - 02:08
                    +3

                    @GingerWay: Out of curiosity, what is the cost of certifying a Stat Dec and copies. I was under the impression it was free.

                    • spal on 14/02/2020 - 05:39

                      @[Deactivated]: Exactly, my thoughts too. Whatever the OP paid, I can discount by 100% just to promote my business of witnessing stat decs and certifying documents. Haha.

  • EFC94 on 13/02/2020 - 23:34
    +2

    Would you like a medal or a plaque to put this on?

    • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2020 - 23:35
      +1

      Plaque is bad. My dentist says it causes the kay. I don't know any kays but this one is the one. Must be bad.

    • GingerWay on 13/02/2020 - 23:47

      So, no additional advice?

      • [Deactivated] on 14/02/2020 - 02:08

        But you didn't ask for any.

        P.s: Glad you were able to cash the cheque in the end.

      • HighAndDry on 14/02/2020 - 16:33

        Honestly, advice would be to check the name on any cheques, personal cashier's or bank cheque, before you accept it.

        I honestly can't blame a bank for being strict about banking a bank cheque only into an account with the exact same name.

  • spal on 14/02/2020 - 05:42

    OP, I have had poor service from CBA too. Whilst they can be frustrating, but subject to interpretation. We are not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.

    • GingerWay on 14/02/2020 - 21:28

      Either a confirmation of whether I am wrong or right. Further explanation about the processes involved.

      I've put myself in their shoes and didn't understand why they would or wouldn't help. Why one bank would do something another bank wouldn't.

      Why the documentation for the informed public seems to give the appearance that something can happen when in fact it may not. That's why I linked it. I'm sure a lot of us at face value would glance at the information and be "right that should be allowed", but the reality is that it isn't.

      Ultimately if I was right, to suggest retraining, but it seems like I was wrong. So, I guess I need to analyse more about the process and see what would be regarded as reasonable.

  • spal on 14/02/2020 - 05:45
    +6

    Like we have restrictions on posts by new members and negative votes, there really should be restrictions on new members posting on the forums. I see a few come through, with some unabashed in admitting that they created the post so that it appears in google searches as their social media postings were taken down.

  • [Deactivated] on 14/02/2020 - 06:06
    +4

    Karen banks a Cheque.

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 14/02/2020 - 09:35
      +1

      Suggested profile avatar for GingerWay:
      https://imgflip.com/i/30rzui

      • [Deactivated] on 14/02/2020 - 12:01

        I think Karen … could be the start of a successful line of children's books.

        • DashCam AKA Rolts on 14/02/2020 - 12:25
          +1

          Let me speak to the manager about stocking them.

  • onetwothreefour on 14/02/2020 - 06:25

    At first I thought you were going to ask one of us for some money with the promise of returning it after you cashed the cheque, are you related to a Nigerian prince somehow?

  • Ocker on 14/02/2020 - 08:10
    +5

    Two lines drawn across a cheque is also acceptable as declaring the cheque is "not negotiable"
    Being "not negotiable" the cheque must be paid into a bank account.
    Banks will generally not accept a cheque to credit to the account of a party other than as specified on the cheque.
    That is, banks will not accept "third party" cheques for obvious legal liability reasons.

    • GG57 on 14/02/2020 - 08:43
      +1

      Exactly.
      There used to be processes within banks to cover this circumstance, but those have probably been dispensed with as 'risks' are not popular any more.

      OP could have asked for the cheque to be re-issued, or the cheque should not have been originally accepted if it was incorrect.

      • GingerWay on 14/02/2020 - 20:46

        Yeah, have to agree there.

        In hindsight it would have been good to know what was actually written on the accounts in advance as well as what was written on the documents.

        The question is: Would you deem a legal name written back to front the same?

        Ideally it shouldn't have been accepted in its form but when you aren't the one accepting from the other party. It complicates things.

    • JimmyF on 14/02/2020 - 14:16

      Banks will generally not accept a cheque to credit to the account of a party other than as specified on the cheque.

      ^^^ Basically this, I got a chq in joint names, and I tried to bank it into my account and they refused saying it needed to be banked into a joint account, which we didn't have at that bank. I'm like my name is on this chq etc, but nope.

      • GG57 on 14/02/2020 - 14:25

        That scenario is completely understandable.
        The cheque payment was to two persons; you could have been ripping the other party off.

        If the cheque was made out to you alone, you could have banked it into a joint account (if you were on that joint account).

        It is all about making sure that the intended recipient receives the funds.

        • JimmyF on 14/02/2020 - 15:45
          +2

          Oh don't disagree, just more of an example for the OP, evening a chq with a name that matches up to the bank account as in my case wasn't enough. So having a incorrect name on it is a long shot. The way the OP is carrying on that some unjust was done to them is amazing. Not to stereotype…… But yeah.

          • GingerWay on 14/02/2020 - 21:13

            @JimmyF: I gained that impression from the banking documentation…

            If anything it shows that the risk management in place is apparently very good. I guess I could easily just turn this thread around and give NAB the thumbs up instead. There is a lot more to the story though and is probably unsuitable to mention more.

            Sometimes the customer is only looking at the outcome. For various reasons…

  • Muzeeb on 14/02/2020 - 08:24
    +3

    What's a cheque doing here in 2020?

    • Ozpit on 14/02/2020 - 09:12
      +1

      What is a cheque? Is that French for something?

    • GingerWay on 14/02/2020 - 20:42

      I wish I could ask the party who decided it was a good idea to use it…

  • GingerWay on 14/02/2020 - 08:30
    -5

    I had a good rest overnight.

    I think I will proceed with a formal complaint.

    I'm going to write a timeline/sequence of events of what happened and sanitise specific statements for privacy reasons. It's going to be a long essay but hopefully I get a proper response from NAB.

    Hopefully I stop someone else coming over the same problem in the future.

    • Muzeeb on 14/02/2020 - 09:49

      You're both a gentleman and a scholar.

    • Ocker on 14/02/2020 - 09:52
      +3

      If "someone else" was to know the first thing about banking they would not even put themselves in the same position.
      Just face the fact the bank acted as they are legally required to do so.
      But go ahead and write your letter of complaint it will give them a good laugh.

      • GingerWay on 14/02/2020 - 21:34

        I probably won't upon your advice. lol.

        I did manage to figure out where it broke down and why CBA was able to pickup the pieces and basically "get it done".

  • render on 14/02/2020 - 09:14

    Trying to understand the situation:

    as the account name was different.

    And

    In that it was missing part of the full name

    Is this something like a Matt / Matthew type situation? Or a bit more different than that?

    • Muzeeb on 14/02/2020 - 09:51

      More like Xing Zhing vs. Zhing Xing

  • JimmyF on 14/02/2020 - 09:32
    +3

    TL;DR OP having a rant NAB wouldn't cash a chq, cashed it at another bank. /thread

    • holdenmg on 14/02/2020 - 10:33

      Threadworthy™ lol

    • Baysew on 14/02/2020 - 11:08

      Which Bank? The bank federal financial intelligence agency AUSTRAC accused of serious and systemic failures to report suspicious deposits, transfers and accounts.

  • Deridas on 14/02/2020 - 20:41

    Stat decs and certifying documents from JPs are free, so sounds like OP got ripped off there.

    OP didn't actually tell us the cheque was not crossed, it sounded like the cheque was crossed, the name on the cheque was different to the name on the bank account +/- passport, therefore NAB did not wish to wear the risk of banking the cheque. If Commbank wishes to wear the risk (which would be reduced with a stat dec), then so be it, NAB has don't nothing wrong, they didn't want your business, Commbank did, so go stick with them.

    The fault is clearly with the OP not doing his/her due diligence in not checking the name on the cheque when they received it. Rather than owning up to the mistake they decide to make a new account and rant on this forum. OP won't get any sympathy here.

    • GingerWay on 14/02/2020 - 21:08

      Well, at least now I know why Commbank were able to do it.

      NAB just flat out didn't want to cooperate. CBA were the ones that came up with the idea to do the stat dec. This along with the other certified documents which we already had tried unsuccessfully with NAB, was enough. These documents state why the cheque is being received. Basically it came down to applying a bit of common sense in the end.

      In my opinion, it would have been hard to get the cheque reissued. There was already considerable delay getting to this point.

      It's good to learn why things are the way they are. I don't like how people jump to the conclusion that this was only just a rant or somehow this was posted elsewhere.

      It's difficult to determine what it the right or wrong way to do things if the banking documentation gives the appearance that something else could be the right way to do it. The section regarding cheques should be altered to reflect what actually happens at the bank.

      So what do you guys think? Should it be changed?

      In the end it was that documentation that caused this whole fuss anyway. If it didn't exist, well I would probably be more inclined to just say it was just another bad day.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join