Rent cheque's cleared but L's not received money

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by SALL View Post
    (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a copy of a cheque to which that subsection applies is evidence of the cheque if:
    (a) the copy is made by the banker in whose possession the cheque is after presentment and,
    (b) it is certified by him to be a true copy of the original.

    But OP has not said that he has been given a copy of the cheque certified by the banker, wouldn't that be required as proof of payment?
    Yes- that what I meant by 'the evidence'. Unendorsed = not routed to anyone else's account. The drawer of the cheque (= holder of account on which cheque issued) still needs to prove 'unendorsed', of course. OP is supposed recipient, isn't he?

    Leave a comment:


  • SALL
    replied
    Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
    (Sigh) In the absence of endorsement, the evidence is that it was paid into payee's account.
    (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a copy of a cheque to which that subsection applies is evidence of the cheque if:
    (a) the copy is made by the banker in whose possession the cheque is after presentment and,
    (b) it is certified by him to be a true copy of the original.


    But OP has not said that he has been given a copy of the cheque certified by the banker, wouldn't that be required as proof of payment?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mars Mug
    replied
    Maybe Moneylord could clear a few things up by explaining how he believes the person might have acted fraudulently with the cheque? Then you can ‘Sigh’ at him

    Can Moneylord go to his own bank and ask where the money is, would his own bank see the cheque evidence as enough to chase up where it went?
    Last edited by Mars Mug; 02-07-2009, 14:49 PM. Reason: Because I'm thick

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by Mars Mug View Post
    OK, a copy of a cheque isn’t evidence that it was paid into the receivers (as in Moneylord) bank account, it just shows that it was paid into a bank account but which one? But then if that information was provided by the solicitor surely Moneylord would be asking his own bank where the cash went?
    (Sigh) In the absence of endorsement, the evidence is that it was paid into payee's account.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mars Mug
    replied
    OK, a copy of a cheque isn’t evidence that it was paid into the receivers (as in Moneylord) bank account, it just shows that it was paid into a bank account but which one? But then if that information was provided by the solicitor surely Moneylord would be asking his own bank where the cash went?

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffrey
    replied
    Originally posted by Mars Mug View Post
    A copy of a cheque isn’t evidence of payment.
    Hmm. Let's see s.3 of the Cheques Act 1957, as amended in 1996 [below]. This states that an 'unindorsed' cheque- i.e. one without any endorsement (= assignment/transfer wording) on the back- is evidence of payment. It's not necessarily irrebuttable evidence, I agree, but the onus of proof is then shifted to the person who issued it (A). He has to prove (by other means) that payment was made to the supposed recipient (B); B does not have to prove the opposite.

    3. Unindorsed cheques as evidence of payment.

    (1) An unindorsed cheque which appears to have been paid by the banker on whom it is drawn is evidence of the receipt by the payee of the sum payable by the cheque.

    (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a copy of a cheque to which that subsection applies is evidence of the cheque if:
    (a) the copy is made by the banker in whose possession the cheque is after presentment and,
    (b) it is certified by him to be a true copy of the original.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mars Mug
    replied
    Originally posted by moneylord View Post
    BUT at present it shows he has and his solicitor is happy with what hes provided.


    A copy of a cheque isn’t evidence of payment. Cash leaving his account isn’t evidence of payment. A record of the account that the cash went into is the most compelling evidence that he paid and you cashed the cheque, and only he can provide that. If he’s acted honestly why refuse that request, if he does refuse take him to court, and ask his solicitor to explain why such a simple request has been denied.

    Leave a comment:


  • moneylord
    replied
    Originally posted by Mars Mug View Post
    Without any cooperation your options are limited really to taking him to court for non-payment and if he is innocent then he will not hesitate to provide the details you need to chase the banks. If he has acted fraudulently then the evidence that he is not providing which the banks hold will work against him. So assuming that he is innocent then asking his solicitor to get him to basically help you track done the missing cash should not be such a big deal.
    you're right, without any cooperation from him this is going no where - he knows that - which is why he's pushing his solicitor to get his lease extended - i have no problem extending the lease provided all monies have been paid to date. This leads to this problem where he knows he hasnt paid BUT at present it shows he has and his solicitor is happy with what hes provided.

    Leave a comment:


  • moneylord
    replied
    Originally posted by SALL View Post
    It's the sender who has to chase his bank to find out where the money went. the receiver has no say in this matter.

    Sender can request a copy of the cashed cheque from his bank. That should prove the account number the cheque was piad into.
    thanks for that. i'll get onto that now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mars Mug
    replied
    Without any cooperation your options are limited really to taking him to court for non-payment and if he is innocent then he will not hesitate to provide the details you need to chase the banks. If he has acted fraudulently then the evidence that he is not providing which the banks hold will work against him. So assuming that he is innocent then asking his solicitor to get him to basically help you track done the missing cash should not be such a big deal.

    Leave a comment:


  • SALL
    replied
    It's the sender who has to chase his bank to find out where the money went. the receiver has no say in this matter.

    Sender can request a copy of the cashed cheque from his bank. That should prove the account number the cheque was piad into.

    Leave a comment:


  • moneylord
    replied
    Originally posted by Mars Mug View Post
    Perhaps his solicitor will provide the bank details of the account that the money was paid into, they shouldn’t have any problems with that since they say it’s your account that it was destined for.

    I don’t think a copy of a cheque and money leaving the other persons account isn’t evidence that the money went to you?
    i would have said: could i ask his solicitor to get his client to go to the bank and get them to trace the money etc - but i know this will not happen - because he knows he hasn't paid me and i'm being pressed to extend his lease on the back of this - so the pressure is really on - as he knows at present im in a corner and don't know how to approach this situation.

    Leave a comment:


  • moneylord
    replied
    Originally posted by Mars Mug View Post
    Perhaps his solicitor will provide the bank details of the account that the money was paid into, they shouldn’t have any problems with that since they say it’s your account that it was destined for.

    I don’t think a copy of a cheque and money leaving the other persons account isn’t evidence that the money went to you?

    i dunno. ive been thinking of how to approach this for a few weeks. i just dont know how to go about proving i've not recieved the money - and thats on the back of him producing a copy of the cheque sent/cashed with his bank statement showing that cheque number was cashed.

    Leave a comment:


  • moneylord
    replied
    Originally posted by Mars Mug View Post
    Wouldn’t he need to get information from the senders account, and it’s always possible that the banks have made an error and so perhaps too early to suggest fraud. I doubt very much that the police would take an interest.
    see how tricky this is

    Leave a comment:


  • moneylord
    replied
    Originally posted by IanM View Post
    Have you approached the bank about tracing the payments? Next stop the police if you are sure there is a fraud here?

    Can that be done yeah?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X