i sent two cheques to cover a bill one was dated the 2nd january and the other was post dated the 9th january but i have checked my bank account this morning and both cheques have already been cashed. I always thiought a cheque cant be cashed before the date of issue.

the fact that it is now February may have made it alot easier to cash a cheque dated for January

if it was february, then 2 points. it is illegal to postdate a cheque although a lot of people do and the banks reserve the right to cash a postdated cheque unless of course it was January as blacksheep has stated

Are you sure its illegal to post date a cheque? A pd cheque is an acknowledgment that the payer agrees the debt is due and is therefore good thing to accept in payment, rather than just a promise to issue a cheque later. I issued a pd cheque once and subsequently stopped it as matters changed. In court I lost trying to argue why I stopped the cheque. The why was irrelevant, simply you cannot stop a post dated cheque.

Are you sure its illegal to post date a cheque? A pd cheque is an acknowledgment that the payer agrees the debt is due and is therefore good thing to accept in payment, rather than just a promise to issue a cheque later. I issued a pd cheque once and subsequently stopped it as matters changed. In court I lost trying to argue why I stopped the cheque. The why was irrelevant, simply you cannot stop a post dated cheque.

issuing of post dated cheque is not admission of debt.

However in banking terms there is no such thing as post dated since banks do not like customers issuing them. Years ago there were Bills of Exchange which was like issuing a post dated cheque and could not to banked before the due date, must admit haven't come across this lately

issuing of post dated cheque is not admission of debt.

 

I'm not sure the courts would agree with you on that one humbleman....

I'm not sure the courts would agree with you on that one humbleman....

I am actually quoting a judge going back 15 years. In a county court case.

On what basis does he say this? In what way can a cheque show anything but an intention to pay, and hence an admission of debt?

BTW, I'm not arguing HM, just debating I am curious, as if you are right, it goes against all my experiences in court!

On what basis does he say this? In what way can a cheque show anything but an intention to pay, and hence an admission of debt?

 

BTW, I'm not arguing HM, just debating I am curious, as if you are right, it goes against all my experiences in court!

In the 90s it was quite common that you would issue suppliers a post dated cheque when you exceeded your credit limit, so the supplier would deliver goods the buyer would issue the supplier a P.D. cheque. On one such occassion this happened and the cheque was subsequently stopped, since there was a large rebate given to this supplier by the manufacturer to be paid to the buyer. The buyer knew that there was a large rebate coming but the supplier did not credit the buyers account hoping he can buy a few months before the buyer became aware of this. The buyer found this out and stopped the payment. The supplier takes the buyer to the court and the buyer argues that the supplier did not properly credit his account, the supplier argued that the buyer had been properly credited and since the buyer had issued the supplier a PD cheque this is an admission by the buyer that the monies are owed. The judge pointed out that giving a P.D. cheque is not considered an admission of debt.

But dont mistake the above with acquiring with intent to deceive. i.e. if you pay for a product in a shop and then stop a payment, that would be deception.

Good info HM, thanks. But, did the judge not say WHY it is not considered an admission of debt? And out of interest, is this considered the case with any cheque, or just PD cheques?

I do not see why issuing a cheque - postdated or otherwise - would be considered an admission of debt. Paying in cash does not constitute such an admission...

I was always under the impression that there was (technically)no such thing as a post dated cheque.

I seem to recall in the past that the Inland Revenue were/are famous for banking post dated cheques upon receipt.

Bear in mind that cases in the County Courts do not set legal precedent, and I've seen some odd decisions made by county court judges in the past! It can't be taken as gospel.

I'm no expert on banking matters but I also did not believe that dates in the future prevented a cheque from being cashed.

I happen to know that MY bank largely ignore the date on the cheque unless it is "unreasonably distant" from the date of presentation. i.e. if I attempted to bank a cheque which was dated 19th January 2024 or 19th January 1966, the bank would probably reject it! However if they decide to present the cheque regardless of the date written on it, then it will be presented and if guaranteed it will be paid upon presentation.

If you wish a debt or bill to be paid later, then issue the cheque later.

a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a.

I always thought a cheque cant be cashed before the date of issue as well, but the bank told me that post dated cheques are illegal, I asked the bank when the same thing happened to me a few weeks ago.

I always thought a cheque cant be cashed before the date of issue as well, but the bank told me that post dated cheques are illegal, I asked the bank when the same thing happened to me a few weeks ago.

Then your bank are misinformed. It has never been a criminal offence to put a future date on a cheque, nor will it ever be. It is however an unlawful document which the banks could at their own discretion reject.

I'm sure the booklet that came from National Girobank when I opened my first cheque account said cheques were valid only from the date on them for a period of six months. They cautioned that postdated or expired cheques would not be honoured and that in the case of postdated, they would charge for bouncing them.

There was also some contradictory rubbish about postdating and using a guarantee card - postdating invalidated the guarantee. But the T&Cs of the guarantee card said that cheques bearing the card number may be honoured even if there are "technical irregularities" and one example they gave was the date.

Issuing a post dated is an offence only if it is intended to defraud another otherwise it's ok.

However most banks just ignore post dated cheques & honour them upon presentation but if they do & you become overdrawnas a result thereby incurring penalty charges you have an argument for a refund

Something similar just happened to me.

Moving house and gave the new landlord a cheque for £1300 that was dated for the 25th of April. He put it through this week and it has taken me way over my overdraft.

Called the Abbey as I though they were not supposed to put it through till the date on it – yet they say they don’t recognize post dated cheques.

Yet another bank charge coming my way because someone I gave a cheque to didn’t follow my simple instructuions.

I have had the same problem with pd chqs.

I have given them out only to fine thant they have been cashed even though the date was in the future, then i would get charged by my bank for cashing them only to be told there is no longer such thing as a pd chq, this also happened to a friend.

So i stopped doing it.

the bank have a clause which states, that while they do not accept post dated cheques they reserve the right to pay any cheques that are missed. To be blunt cheques missed at the first point of contact ie bank, are rarely checked up to a certain amount and so far none of the amounts mentioned is at that limit.

The date on a cheque is meant to be the date on which you signed it. It would probably be clearer if the space for the date was beside the signature.

Not sure how it's done now, but cheques used to be processed by clerks who only really looked at the figures - these would be typed into a machine as the cheque flashed past, which would then print the amount in magnetis type on the bottom (there is a space next to the account number for this). The words, date and signature would be ignored unless the cheque was queried for some reason. So there's no point in postdating a cheque anyway, nobody reads it!

I don't think I have ever read such misinformation on any other thread on this forum as exists on this one.

Cheques were initially governed by the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. And bills

of exchange were issued with two dates-the date of issue, and the date

when the bill was to be paid-often several months in advance.

Since then, there have been a Cheques Act 1957 and another in 1992, and

part of the 1882 Act has been deregulated partly to accomodate banks to

pay cheques in a central office obviating the need to send their cheques

to individual branches for clearance.

At no time, as far as I can see, has the facility to postdate a cheque ever

been abolished. Indeed certain companies often ask their prospective clients

to deliberately post date their cheques as a guarantee they the cheque will

not be presented before that date should they not be alloctaed they shares the applied for, or the goods sent on approval were returned.

I am aware that certain banks do now stipulate that they frown on the use

of customers postdating cheques, but I believe those banks are reneging on

the contract that exists between themselves and their customers when they

take such action.

A cheque is an instruction by the drawer of the cheque to pay a specified

amount to a payee on, or after, a certain date which the drawer then signs

to confirm his intentions. Those insructions are supposed to be honoured by

the bank, providing the funds are available.

That the banks have not always honoured this procedure is evidenced by the

need for the Cheques Act 1992. Where the drawer had specifically marked

the cheque "account payee only", the bankers were ignoring that instruction

and allowing the cheque to be transferred to other accounts. So the

1992 Act spelt it out for them. Now things

have gone the other way and virtually all chequebooks issued have the

cheques so marked [account payee only]. This makes life so much easier for banks since they do

not have the worry of concerning themselves with endorsements on the back of cheques.

And so it is with postdated cheques. By asking customers not to postdate

cheques, it makes life even easier for the banks. They have one less factor

to concern themselves with when paying cheques. And make no mistake, the

banks are liable when they pay a cheque that should not have been paid.

I am only surprised that they have not tried to prevent customers from

stopping cheques.

This is an extract from the British Bankers Association on postdated cheques

Sometimes customers 'post-date' a cheque. This is a date in the future and essentially means that the customer intends that the bank will not pay the cheque earlier than the date inserted on the cheque. If a post-dated cheque is paid in before the date on the cheque the bank may pay it or return it marked ?post-dated'. Most banks do not encourage post-dating cheques. You should be careful to ensure that a post-dated cheque is not presented to a bank before the date on the cheque. Some banks state in their terms and conditions that they will pay a post dated cheque on first presentation if the cheque is otherwise in order.

Quite clearly then it is not unlawful to postdate cheques, it's just that banks

are weaselling out of their responsibilty to accede to their customers

instructions.

The date on a cheque is meant to be the date on which you signed it. It would probably be clearer if the space for the date was beside the signature.

 

Where does it state that the date is the date the cheque was issued? The date is in fact the date before which the cheque should not be paid by order of the drawer.

 

Not sure how it's done now, but cheques used to be processed by clerks who only really looked at the figures - these would be typed into a machine as the cheque flashed past, which would then print the amount in magnetis type on the bottom (there is a space next to the account number for this). The words, date and signature would be ignored unless the cheque was queried for some reason. So there's no point in postdating a cheque anyway, nobody reads it!

I think you are confusing two different processes. The magnetic

type is added to the cheque by the bank where the cheque is paid in.

But it is the bank that holds the account on which the cheque is drawn that

is responsible to see that the cheque is in order before it is paid. And they

are supposed to check everything-the date; that there is a payee; the

amount in words and figures agree;that the cheque has been signed by

the drawer [and not been forged] and there is not a "stop" on the cheque.

In practice now I understand, much of that has fallen by the wayside, but

the banks do run the risk of being held accountable should things go wrong.

Lookinforinfo, I'm afraid you are wrong in almost all of your interpretations of the above. The magnetic type is in fact added by the drawer's bank, or at least it was when I had the job of doing it.

The 1992 Act is irrelevant, it says nothing about postdating.

It may well be that Bills of Exchange had two dates on them, but cheques only have the one. This is the date of issue of the cheque, and it should be the date on which the cheque is issued.

You can find nothing to abolish the facility to postdate a cheque because that facility never actually existed.

As you say, the British Bankers Association are clear that it is legal to present a postdated cheque and that it is the drawer's responsibility to ensure that this doesn't happen. As you helpfully quote, they say:

You should be careful to ensure that a post-dated cheque is not presented to a bank before the date on the cheque. Some banks state in their terms and conditions that they will pay a post dated cheque on first presentation if the cheque is otherwise in order.

That seems perfectly clear to me.

B-B