A word of warning - my bank's error!!!

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 27 Jan 2009 9:31 am

I take a personal check, and send the item after the check clears-no problem. If the check does not clear, guess what? I still have the item.

I sent a bank cashiers check for a $110 not long ago(the seller refused a personal check as I described above). Well, the post office lost it, and the bank made me wait 90 days to refund my money, IF and only if the check didn't clear some where. A personal check would have cleared in a few days, and I would have avoided the grief. And the seller wouldn't have viewed me as some freakin' scammer. I do biz with personal checks. I can clear a personal check faster than paypal and all their B.S. and fees. Just my opinion.

steve takacs · Post by **steve takacs** » 27 Jan 2009 4:41 pm

Heh, that's a good idea James, just using personal checks. I've done that as well but not as often, but might do it more now though. As for Paypal, I'm with you and am not a fan at all though many Forum members seem to be. steve t

James Quackenbush · Post by **James Quackenbush** » 27 Jan 2009 4:42 pm

I have always used Postal Money Orders in all my transactions ....There have been too many scams going on with Cashiers Checks .....If someone tried to counterfeit a Postal Money Order , it's a Federal Offense and the Govt. will hunt them down like the dogs that they are .... The Postal Money Orders are not the problem ....The leeway that these banks are given IS the problem ....With money going over the wire and with all the modern technology with computers today, there is NO excuse for banks not to know EXACTLY what is going on ....They know if they are not TOO LAZY to do their job !!!... I also blame to government for not watching the store here .....They have given the banks free reign over anything they want to do ......The banks get bailed out , and will only lend money to the rich who have great credit, and are the only folks that can qualify for loans today !!.... Any big lobby group in this country get's bailed out !!!.....Figure it out !!!.... Money goes to money and the little guy get's stuck with a Postal Money Order mistake !!.....It makes me SICK !!!.....Sorry for the rant ....It's time for a change !!....Jim

admin · Post by **b0b** » 27 Jan 2009 5:27 pm

Personal checks clear the banks very quickly now - 2 or 3 days is not unusual. I don't see any advantage to postal money orders. If it's lost, it takes months to get your money back. If a check gets lost, you still have the money!

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 27 Jan 2009 5:37 pm

I'm inclined to go that way in the future, b0b. Is there some way - apart from making the cheque (check!) out to the payee - to prevent it being cashed by anyone else? I'm still not sure of the finer points of US bank practice.

After this experience, I'll require a buyer to await clearance of the funds. For my last purchase - a Derby SD-10 - I sent a certified cheque which, apparently, guaranteed the seller that the amount was in my account and would be 'held' pending its arrival in the banking system. That worked out okay, but how much simpler it would be to pop a personal cheque in the mail.

Greg Cutshaw · Post by **Greg Cutshaw** » 27 Jan 2009 6:55 pm

My bank, Northwest Savings, waits for batches of personal checks to accumulate before submitting them. They "clear" my account (are available for withdrawal) in 3 days, but are not submitted to the issuer's bank sometimes for many weeks. If they bounce after 5 weeks, my bank takes the money out of my account. Even if they checked the issuers account at the time I cashed the check, and it had enough money, that same account could be short at the time the check is actually submitted to the issuing bank.

I argued with my bank's head office about all this. Why couldn't they just tell me when my bank actually received the funds???? They refused to offer that kind of detail and reiterated that it is often weeks before the money is actually drawn out of the issuers account. You might want to have this discussion with your own bank and ask them if after only 2 or 3 days, the money is yours and do they actually have the money in their hands and they won't come back to you later.

I got burnt by this so maybe if varies by bank as to how fast they actually get their money versus a standard "check clears in 3 days" statement. At my bank, the "check clearing time" does not mean that my bank has received the money and that I am off the hook.

Greg

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 27 Jan 2009 7:26 pm

Greg wrote:

" Even if they checked the issuers account at the time I cashed the check, and it had enough money, that same account could be short at the time the check is actually submitted to the issuing bank. "

Doesn't this, then, make a good case for using a certified cheque? I understood that, when I obtained the CC from Wachovia for that Derby I bought, the funds were 'frozen' in my account and were only available for that particular cheque. That way, it theoretically shouldn't go wrong.

I've always taken issue with that sloppy practice of declaring a cheque 'good', then coming back at me if the funds weren't there to meet it. I do believe the banks see this as some sort of 'service' they're providing us - by letting us have the money 'up front'. In fact, what we really want to know is whether or not the funds are, ultimately, going to be ours. If I remember correctly, the UK practice is to only credit the payee's account when the cheque has actually reached its bank of origin, and the matter is beyond dispute.

Loren Bayles · Post by **Loren Bayles** » 27 Jan 2009 9:17 pm

Just to add my 2 cents worth.

I have always paid by USPS Money orders (Purchased at a US Post office only and have required payment in the same way because as was mentioned in a couple of other posts, your USPO can verify whether it is a legitimate document or not.)
Then if they don't have the cash on hand to cash it you can deposit it in your favorite institution with no concern as to it's validity.
If your financial institution does it's job properly you will usually have no problem.

So far it has Worked fine for me though, it is getting harder and harder to get out of town paper cashed because of a few crooks.
A dirty shame but true just the same.

Whether buying or selling both parties have to exercise faith and trust and I agree with one or two of the previous posts that stated the best place to exercise that faith is with members of the Steel Guitar Forum.
It is equally hard to send Money to a person you don't know for merchandise you have never seen as it is to ship valuable merchandise before you are sure the payment received is legitimate.
The Forum is definately my recommendation as the place to deal.

LB
Great and trustworthy people to deal with. At least that has been my experience thus far.

Mark Greenway · Post by **Mark Greenway** » 28 Jan 2009 12:40 am

I wonder why Wachovia is having trouble? Are they still in business or are they in Bankruptcy chapter 11? They are part of the bank failures I know. HUMMM

I wonder why?

Iain Carmichael · Post by **Iain Carmichael** » 28 Jan 2009 1:18 am

If I remember correctly, the UK practice is to only credit the payee's account when the cheque has actually reached its bank of origin, and the matter is beyond dispute.

I'm not an expert in these matters but it is my understanding that this is the case. However, I believe that it is not unheard of for a cheque to have been "cleared" (as above) and then to have been dishonored because of inadequate funds. This is, I believe, an EXTREMELY rare occurence and I do not know what the special set of circumstances is that would bring it about, nor do I know where either bank would stand vis-a-vis compensation.

James Quackenbush · Post by **James Quackenbush** » 28 Jan 2009 4:31 am

Go back and read what Greg C. has said ......This is FACT ....I can't say for sure that EVERY bank deals in this manner, but I have dealt with at least 5 different banks, and what he is saying IS TRUE !!....A bad check can come back to haunt you weeks later !!!..... As I said in an earlier post BANKS ARE LAZY not to mention they are all protected by our government .... Guess who pays for that protection ? ......

Look on the internet and see how many people got stung by Certified Checks ....Again, your bank takes it's sweet time checking to see if the check is actually good or not ....You , thinking that the check is "Certified" send off your goods, and don't find out till later that the "Certified " check was no good !!....I have bought and sold many instruments ....Come on over and look at my house full of them .... Again , BANKS ARE LAZY and are protected by our government and who's account does the money get deducted from if the "Certified " check is a bad check ? .....Yup !!!.....Your Account !!!"

I have dealt with Ebay , Paypal , USPS , UPS , FEDEX and every and any scenario you want to discuss and I will tell you with all certainty that the US Postal Money order is by far the safest , cheapest , and easiest way of sending money ... Plus the fact that a Postal Money Order is as good as cash !!.....Jim

RARE are the times that anyone forges Postal Money Orders as they know the repurcussions from our govt. .......

Robert Harper · Post by **Robert Harper** » 28 Jan 2009 10:27 am

I'm still not sure of the finer points of US bank practice

After veiwing the debacle of the last few months, I think the banks are not sure of the finer points of US bank practice

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 28 Jan 2009 10:34 am

Point taken, James, but I still think that the USPS should be obliged to carry enough cash in their safe to satisfy a reasonable demand for the cashing of MOs. As it stands, the cashier has to have enough in his till, or you're out of luck!

Robert -

.....

Keith Cordell · Post by **Keith Cordell** » 28 Jan 2009 11:11 am

Wachovia AND Wells Fargo are former employers of mine. Run, don't walk, in another direction for your banking needs.
These two institutions are totally devoid of interest in customer service if it requires any effort on their part. Yet they have some of the highest fees in the industry. The mailing of those money orders is actually a violation of the law in most states. They are considered "live" documents until they have been proved to be forgeries. Had anyone found them or stolen the mail you'd be out your money.

Greg Cutshaw · Post by **Greg Cutshaw** » 28 Jan 2009 11:12 am

My postmaster here in Corry, told me they are authorized to issue postal money orders but are not required to cash them. When I suggested he increase the starting till amount he immediately said " I can see there's no way we are gonna make you happy and there is no way the till is going to be increased". When I told him that the money order in my hand said USPS on it and that it seems reasonable that I should go there to cash it, he asked me why I should expect them to cash it and said from now on I should take it to a bank, then he slammed the phone down on my ear. I promptly called him back to ask him if he always hangs up on customers, he told me to stop "threatening him" and slammed the ohone down again. I never raised my voice and all along was trying to understand their inane customer service.

The same post office is upset with me using Media Mail so much and keeps telling me how poorly media mail is handled and how risky it is to use.

I now use the post office in Columbus, PA near my house (instead of work) and they have been a pleasure to work with.

I would bail out neither the banks nor the post office!

Greg

James Quackenbush · Post by **James Quackenbush** » 28 Jan 2009 11:21 am

Hi Roger ,
YES !!!....I too agree that they should have the money to cover a a money order that THEY sell , but I'm wondering how the Post Office would even know what money orders are going where ? ...How much should they keep on hand at every Post Office ? .....They surely can't keep the amount that they sell in EVERY Post Office .... Lord knows that the government has given the banks enough money to cover our money orders and then some in the bail out that they just performed ...The banks will now lend money to folks who don't need it as they are the only ones that will qualify for the loan .....I would think that the least they could do is to cash a Postal Money Order and be smart enough to know if it's counterfeit or not !!..... Maybe I'm asking too much ? ..... It's bad enough that our govt. gave so much money to the banks when it was the banks who fully well knew what they were doing, and made the mistake, and made a LOT of money for the higher ups !!!!!!..... IT all STINKS !!!... No problem ....We'll just print more money !!!.... Jim

admin · Post by **b0b** » 28 Jan 2009 11:22 am

Roger Rettig wrote:Point taken, James, but I still think that the USPS should be obliged to carry enough cash in their safe to satisfy a reasonable demand for the cashing of MOs. As it stands, the cashier has to have enough in his till, or you're out of luck!

Robert - .....

You guys obviously don't live in "cash crop" country!

. Between the pot growers and the immigrant vineyard workers, the PO here in Cloverdale does a whopping business in money orders.

James Quackenbush · Post by **James Quackenbush** » 28 Jan 2009 11:32 am

Talk to a lot of folks here in NY that send money back home to another country , and they don't trust the Postal system in thier country .....They pay the extra money and use Western Union ..... Theives see a letter coming from the USA in some countries , and they just assume that there is money in it and they take it ...
Jamaica is bad for that ....Jim

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 28 Jan 2009 11:38 am

Well the next thing left to do is go back to the barter system. b0b, I'm gonna have to send you 35 chickens for 10 packs of strings. That should cover shipping. Oh yeah, keep the scratch.

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 28 Jan 2009 11:44 am

Keith wrote:

"The mailing of those money orders is actually a violation of the law in most states. They are considered "live" documents until they have been proved to be forgeries. Had anyone found them or stolen the mail you'd be out your money."

Well - yes, Keith; that was the thrust of my complaint to them, and the point I made in my initial post in this thread.

They simply popped them in an envelope with standard postage on it - and the checks had been endorsed, or signed', from when I deposited them earlier; I thought it grossly irresponsible.

It will come as no surprise to some here that I've yet to get that apology.

Jon Jaffe · Post by **Jon Jaffe** » 28 Jan 2009 4:11 pm

Another reason to use PayPal and eat the cost! The anxiety, time and opportunity cost have to be worth 3%.

A money order, personal check, and a cashier’s check have two sets of numbers, a bank number and an account number. If you present the check to a cashier at a bank it can be verified on the spot.

I received a cashier’s check for a guitar a few months ago. It had a routing number (Bank ID) but there was no account number printed on it. It was from a small bank in rural Texas, which only had one account for itself.

Anyway, the cashier would not deposit it. I said, "I am not leaving until you verify the authenticity of this check, I am your customer and a good one." That got me to a manager who called the bank in rural Texas and the check was deposited with a two day hold. The whole deal took about 45 minutes. But it was a very lousy 45 minutes. I am out about an hour of time, but no real money.

So, I was headed to play golf. I was so juiced from the morning that I lost $20, because I putted like a blind gorilla. After golf I went home, and my wife said we should go out to dinner, and I would feel better. I said "Where to?" That cost me another $80.

I am now out $100 which is more than the PayPal fee. My point is PayPal is worth it and your bank can verify a check on the spot. There is always a cost to doing business. I prefer the electronic ones to the personal costs.

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 28 Jan 2009 4:37 pm

One of the problems with Paypal, is that Paypal isn't infallible, even though they CHARGE you like they are. For instance, we had a transaction a while back, when we sold an item on e-bay. The transfer of funds was misapplied to someone else's account and it took about 2 weeks and many phone calls and grief to get it taken care of. Oh yeah, and them to eventually inform our customer that we were not scamming him, that it WAS actually Paypals fault. In the mean time our client is LIVID because he wants his item. It was very stressful to all involved. Thankfully they finally got it straightened out. But we STILL had to wait the six days before we could extract funds---so there ya go. I have no love for Paypal. Soooooo, we are back down to trading chickens for guitar strings.

Keith Cordell · Post by **Keith Cordell** » 28 Jan 2009 4:50 pm

A few issues that have come up with Paypal don't mitigate the fact that most of us that use it regularly have NO issues with it. I have well in excess of 6000 transactions and have had exactly 3 of them that were not solvable with a phone call. Personal checks are not even a consideration, as the trouble you have to go through to get the funds are not worth the positive benefits of saving 3%. If you are having an issue with a Paypal transaction, CALL THEM. They have never failed to do whatever needed doing to get the issue straightened out.

admin · Post by **b0b** » 28 Jan 2009 5:02 pm

I've been using PayPal every day for many years. I've only had one instance where I didn't get the money - for a $15 CD - that was due me. Even then, if I could have proved that I shipped it with a tracking number, they say that they would have paid. Lacking that, it was my word against some asshole customer's.

I know that some people have had bad experiences with PayPal, but I just want everyone to know that in the thousands of transactions I've had with them, their track record has been pretty darned good.

The Steel Guitar Forum

A word of warning - my bank's error!!!

Personal Checks

Money orders

Wachovia?

Roger Sais