![sp_Feed](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_Feed.png)
![sp_TopicIcon](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_TopicIcon.png)
10:25 am
October 27, 2013
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
Given the weakness that allows for multiple photo-deposits especially across different accounts and institutions, it may be time for individuals and businesses alike to stop using cheques. I posted earlier (or elsewhere?) that cheque usage has dropped dramatically on a global basis and it is mostly France, USA and Canada that are still outliers in cheque usage, even though the numbers have fallen dramatically. It is about time consumer groups, government and financial institutions start education campaigns to discourage their use. They are an anachronism of a past century.
There is no particular reason to write a cheque any more except in extenuating circumstances, such as amount too large for Interac e-transfer, or recipient has no means to accept credit or debit cards. We have eliminated them almost entirely* in our lives and do not do business with anyone who requests/wants a cheque for a particular service.
* Two years ago, an auto dealer preferred I give them a cheque rather than a bank draft, the latter of which apparently has even more fraudulent activity occurring. That is fine with me as that eliminates any need for me to go to the bank to begin with.
10:40 am
April 6, 2013
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
AltaRed said
Given the weakness that allows for multiple photo-deposits especially across different accounts and institutions, it may be time for individuals and businesses alike to stop using cheques. I posted earlier (or elsewhere?) that cheque usage has dropped dramatically on a global basis and it is mostly France, USA and Canada that are still outliers in cheque usage, even though the numbers have fallen dramatically. …
It is not time yet until alternatives, like Interac e-Transfers, have similar legal protection for senders that cheques have.
I've refused to pay contractors by Interac e-Transfer. Not going to be having a potential dispute of whether or not I legally did pay the invoice should the e-Transfer to the e-mail address on the invoice be intercepted and deposited by someone else.
11:18 am
September 29, 2017
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
Norman1 said
...
So what if victims are being blamed. Victims are the blame if they are neglient in handling their funds or their affairs. Bank has done nothing wrong when people don't even check at their monthly statements to see if there is anything wrong!
How is person negligent in handling their funds? It is the BANK that is negligent since THEY are the ones processing the transaction and have the tools to be able to verify the validity of a transaction. They are the ones that design the processes and they are the ones to design the tools. We have NO say in that. Therefore, it is incumbent on them to provide ways to make those processes and tools secure. Remember, they design these processes and tools more for THEIR convenience... and if it is a convenience for the customer, that is often secondary.
And FIs make a "requirement" for you to regularly check THEIR processes is just them passing the buck.
Can someone take extra measures to protect themselves? Sure. BUT not doing so does not mean that they are negligent. How absolutely absurd!
11:47 am
October 27, 2013
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
smayer97 said
Can someone take extra measures to protect themselves? Sure. BUT not doing so does not mean that they are negligent. How absolutely absurd!
You will never win that argument for as long as you write about it. The terms and conditions you consent to when opening an account are the contractual obligation.
The FIs provide tools such as email and/or SMS alerts for account holders to use to monitor ANY and ALL activity in their accounts, and educational materials to help account holders avoid a range of nefarious mechanisms to gain access to login credentials. Use them. The account holder has an obligation to monitor their accounts on a timely basis) per the terms and conditions of consenting to opening that account. Employ it.
Not doing so is indeed negligence on the account holder's part just as it would be in a range of other life endeavors* we engage in. Stop making excuses.
* As in operating a vehicle for example. The owner/operator has an obligation to be licensed, have insurance, keep the vehicle roadworthy and follow the rules of the road. The bank (vehicle manufacturer in this case) does not carry those responsibilities.
11:57 am
March 30, 2017
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
11:59 am
October 27, 2013
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
Norman1 said
It is not time yet until alternatives, like Interac e-Transfers, have similar legal protection for senders that cheques have.I've refused to pay contractors by Interac e-Transfer. Not going to be having a potential dispute of whether or not I legally did pay the invoice should the e-Transfer to the e-mail address on the invoice be intercepted and deposited by someone else.
Perhaps, and I understand the vulnerabilities, but I have a transaction record (confirmation) that I can screenshot for every e-transfer that goes out, i.e. to who it was sent too, the amount, invoice number or description of services rendered in message box and the time stamp. If the recipient's receiving information such as email address has been hacked/hijacked, that is the recipient's problem, not mine. I have the transaction record. As with the cheque issue being discussed, it is our obligation to ensure our own phones and email addresses are secure if we are receiving payments using those processes.
1:38 pm
September 29, 2017
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
AltaRed said
...There is no particular reason to write a cheque any more except in extenuating circumstances, such as amount too large for Interac e-transfer, or recipient has no means to accept credit or debit cards. We have eliminated them almost entirely* in our lives and do not do business with anyone who requests/wants a cheque for a particular service.
...
There are many more reasons.... one being that Interac also has its minimalist security to be aware of, as examples have been presented. So there are still many reasons to use cheques. BUT all of that is moot to the issue at hand. The banks choose, design and define the processes and tools so they have a responsibility to the security of these, and not try to offload these to the customer.
1:43 pm
September 29, 2017
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
@AltaRed you keep implying that this an operator error problem. The operator did nothing wrong. THAT is the key point in all this discussion. T&Cs have their limitations and policies are not laws, as you try to implicitly elevate them to.
If it can be shown that the operator made a mistake, like in all your analogies, then yes. BUT there was no mistake made by the operator.
I hope others do not extend the same lack of understanding and compassion towards you as you seem to have a lack of towards others.
1:58 pm
September 29, 2017
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
Norman1 said
I found CTV (August 30, 2019): Calgary man lost hundreds from double-deposited cheque:A Calgary man lost nearly $700 after a cheque he wrote was cashed twice, once through a mobile banking app, and the second time after being signed over to someone else.
Nathan Chan wrote the cheque for $678.75 in March 2018 to a contractor.
He thought everything was fine until he recently noticed it was deposited twice; once when he handed it over and a second time four months later.
…Cheques are bills of exchange and not general legal contracts. Bills of Exchange Act section 16 require bills of exchange to be unconditional orders. So, one can't add arbitrary conditions to cheques, like "Not valid after 30 days" or "Not valid until 14 days after deck work is completed."
GOOD Article...Higlights:
- Double presentment describes a crime.
Therefore, let's not blame the victim. It is a crime, whether wilful or accidental.
- Policies of 30 or 90 days, are just that. They are about what is easily achievable if caught in time. BUT "The CPA will also arrange to return funds up to six years after a questionable cheque clearing ...
Servus also reimburses loyal and valued members outside the above policies in circumstances where the member is clearly not to blame."
So, 30 days are NOT laws. Solutions are possible long after the 30 days. And the above shows how FIs have and take responsibility to deal with this. Of course, taking measures to avoid falling into that situation is far preferable, and I agree. BUT life is not perfect. So, let's stop trying to blame victims!
1:59 pm
October 27, 2013
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
Of course there was operator error. Anyone who signs a contract/agreement is obliged to meet the terms and conditions of that contract or if necessary, seek redress through negotiation, or through the courts.
As Norman1 has pointed out, if the routing data was correct, i.e. transit number, institution number and account number were a match, the bank IS going to honor its obligation to pay out the amount shown on the cheque. Would you want your bank to put every debit/cheque/bill payment on hold and not pay until the account holder validates it as correct by Secure Message or a physical visit to the bank?
2:25 pm
September 29, 2017
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
AltaRed said
Of course there was operator error. Anyone who signs a contract/agreement is obliged to meet the terms and conditions of that contract or if necessary, seek redress through negotiation, or through the courts.As Norman1 has pointed out, if the routing data was correct, i.e. transit number, institution number and account number were a match, the bank IS going to honor its obligation to pay out the amount shown on the cheque. Would you want your bank to put every debit/cheque/bill payment on hold and not pay until the account holder validates it as correct by Secure Message or a physical visit to the bank?
Strawman argument.... there is no need to go to that extent to verify the transaction. Simple verification of duplication is easy. Even a software like Quicken can do this. Banks have enough info and resources and sophistication to do this. As has pointed out, the only reason they do not is cost savings, nothing more ... because it is cheaper to pass the buck and deal with the exception that is brought to their attention than to do it themselves, by their own admission!
Would you be ok if the bank reprocessed a batch of cheques and place the onus on you to catch their error every time?
You seem to keep missing that a crime is committed in these instances, and that banks take measure that compromise security ALL THE TIME, removing checks and balances that were once in place. UGH!
I'm out...
3:13 pm
October 27, 2013
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
How can software catch duplication if cheque number is not (cannot) be used as a qualifying data point? There are a number of reasons for 'same' cheque numbers as Norman1 pointed out. It has nothing to do with one's record keeping in Quicken or otherwise (which I do use for what that is worth).
The crime, assuming there probably is one, is the individual that deposited it twice, whether stupidly or nefariously. It was neither the bank's fault, nor the account holder's fault, but it is on the account holder for not dealing with it in a timely matter, i.e. with the 30-45 days or whatever of having received the monthly statement. It really is as simple as that.
Had this happened to me for whatever reason, I would graciously ask the bank to chase down and try to recover the funds, but I certainly would not be asking the bank itself to make me whole....given I violated the terms of my contract with them. Had I caught it within the 30-45 days, then of course I would expect the bank to cover it and then leave them to try and recover it if they felt it worth their while.
When an account holder does not fulfill his/her obligations of timely notification, there should not be an expectation the bank would make the account holder whole. They might do it out of goodwill but they are not charities.
Too many folks seem to think FIs are supposed to be the protectors, or helicoptering parents, of wayward account holders holding their hands. They are businesses selling products and services for the most part. It has been my experience over some 50 years that banks do pretty well in trying to educate and assist customers AND providing goodwill. I have mostly appreciated the give and take of the relationships I have had with financial institutions over the years and I have no axes to grind with them.
3:51 pm
October 27, 2013
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
As hopefully a last comment from me in this thread, there is a need for better payment processing systems. We keep hearing about this from Payments Canada but it seems painfully slow. Surely, it cannot be that hard to have essentially real time (overnight) processing such that issues such as 'hold times' disappear, and even the issue of double processing of cheques per this thread can be eliminated. Who is holding back progress? The government? The regulator? Or?
8:51 am
April 6, 2013
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
smayer97 said
GOOD Article...Higlights:
- Double presentment describes a crime.
Therefore, let's not blame the victim. It is a crime, whether wilful or accidental.- Policies of 30 or 90 days, are just that. They are about what is easily achievable if caught in time. BUT "The CPA will also arrange to return funds up to six years after a questionable cheque clearing ...
No, the 30 days or 45 days is part of the account agreement. You obviously didn't read your account agreements.
Article actually said up to six years is allowed when "the cheque writer gets a declaration from the original payee that the funds were not received". That matches CPA Rule A4, subsection 6(g) which allows six years for a cheque to be returned when the “Intended Payee(s) Not Paid”.
Good luck getting that funds-not-received declaration from the payee! The payee actually received the funds the first time and the declaration includes the statement "I/WE UNDERSTAND THAT MAKING A FALSE DECLARATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE".
Only 90 days is allowed for “Duplicate Payment Item” under subsection 6(c).
Servus also reimburses loyal and valued members outside the above policies in circumstances where the member is clearly not to blame."
So, 30 days are NOT laws. Solutions are possible long after the 30 days. And the above shows how FIs have and take responsibility to deal with this. …
As AltaRed wrote, member is clearly to blame for not reporting the double presentment in time.
I doubt that Servus reimbursed the client and absorbed the $678.75 itself. It is more likely Servus contacted the payee, the contractor. Contractor was likely surprised as he didn't endorse the cheque over to anyone else. Contractor signed a declaration that the endorsement on the back of the cheque that was presented second time was a forgery. Servus then returned the second presentment for "Forged Endorsement” within the six years allowed by Rule A4, subsection 6(a) for that reason and received the funds back.
9:17 am
November 18, 2017
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
9:43 am
April 6, 2013
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
AltaRed said
Perhaps, and I understand the vulnerabilities, but I have a transaction record (confirmation) that I can screenshot for every e-transfer that goes out, i.e. to who it was sent too, the amount, invoice number or description of services rendered in message box and the time stamp. If the recipient's receiving information such as email address has been hacked/hijacked, that is the recipient's problem, not mine. I have the transaction record. As with the cheque issue being discussed, it is our obligation to ensure our own phones and email addresses are secure if we are receiving payments using those processes.
Those show that you sent the e-transfer. They don't show the funds were actually received by the intended payee and, consequently, paid the invoice.
It is actually the sender's problem in such cases. Just like a cheque that was lost in the mail, the sender owes the contractor still.
This is from CBC (Sept 22, 2019): Banks tell dozens of customers they're to blame for thousands of dollars lost to e-transfer fraudsters:
Rene Trudeau e-transferred the maximum his bank allowed — $3,000 — to a contractor who installed a new front door on his home in February. He then e-transferred the remaining $300 owed and texted the contractor to let him know he'd been paid in full.
The contractor texted back, saying he didn't get the e-transfers and hadn't seen a dime.
…
As soon as Trudeau realized something was wrong, he contacted TD Bank and an employee was able to stop the $300 e-transfer from leaving his account. But the earlier $3,000 was gone.That was the beginning of a seven-month battle with TD, to try to track his money and get it back.
…
If one does pay a contractor by e-Transfer, one needs to do it securely and not by using a public password that's pre-printed on the invoice.
10:41 am
October 27, 2013
![sp_UserOfflineSmall](https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-themes/default/images/sp_UserOfflineSmall.png)
Norman1 said
If one does pay a contractor by e-Transfer, one needs to do it securely and not by using a public password that's pre-printed on the invoice.
I agree. I cannot imagine using a Contractor who would include an e-transfer password on an invoice. I wouldn't pay using e-transfer if that was the case.
The Contractors (services) I use have AutoDeposit turned on and at least some have a unique email password for Interac e-transfer receipts only. For each new Contractor I use for the first time (and it is rare), I send them an email first saying that I assume they have a bullet proof password on that email address and that in any event of any hack of their email address and hijack of payment made by me, I will not be responsible for any loss of receipt of funds. That email has 'offended' a few Contractors over time but I don't care. Either take security seriously or I will go elsewhere.
Ultimately, it would be a rare occasion that I would have a 'new' e-transfer recipient even once a year, so the above is mostly a moot point. Most of my e-transfer recipients are for recurring services and most, other than sole proprietors, have a credit card option anyway, via Quickbooks or similar.
Each of us obviously needs to use the payment method(s) they are most comfortable with, but we each need to be responsible and accountable for how we use and manage those method(s).
Please write your comments in the forum.