Cheques being phased out in Australia by 2030

[tggzzz]

I find it amusing here when those ahead of me in the grocery checkout aisle take a much longer time to pay on-line than it takes me to pay cash.
(Of course, those who pay by check take even longer.)

What kind of antique validation systems do your stores use? There are places in the UK where a card takes 30s to validate a transaction, like its some 1980s dial up terminal. Those are used in places with infrequent transactions. However, in high traffic places, like supermarkets, where the transaction time really matters, it only takes a second or two, especially for tap and go transactions, where I don't even need to tap in a PIN.

Latency in increased where the terminal has to make a connection to something that will authorise the transaction. Connections via a cell phone make that particularly slow and annoyimg.

Latency is decreased where the merchant decides to "self authorise" a transaction without involving another part of the astoundingly complex (and expensive!) payments ecosystem. Supermarkets probably use a very local (=fast) algorithm like "PIN OK" and "previously used in this store without problem" therefore we'll assume it is OK this time".

So having good infrastructure isn't the source of the speed, rather avoiding using the infrastructure is the key speedup.

[tggzzz]

My parents are in their mid - late eighties and use internet banking, tablets and smart phones, etc.

I don't know of anyone who has written or received a cheque in the last 5 years.

Tax refunds, etc all go straight back into your bank account.

Most of my customers use credit / debit card via the tap function, a few insert the card and a few use their phone / watch.

The phone / watch users are not always the young ones either. Some are in the 50 - 80 year old bracket.

And bugger the others; they can go to hell.

Most people can see. Bugger the blind - it is uneconomic to enable them to be part of society.

I have no idea which part of my reply you're referring to.

Are you saying the blind can't use credit cards but they could use cheques?

The attitude that because some old people use newer tech, those that can't are somehow at fault - and can therefore be discounted and can be ignored.

[David_AVD]

And bugger the others; they can go to hell.

Most people can see. Bugger the blind - it is uneconomic to enable them to be part of society.

I have no idea which part of my reply you're referring to.

Are you saying the blind can't use credit cards but they could use cheques?

The attitude that because some old people use newer tech, those that can't are somehow at fault - and can therefore be discounted and can be ignored.

No, that's you projecting that story line. I was merely pointing out that age / generation is not a general barrier. You're certainly getting your exorcise,  jumping to conclusions.

[Halcyon]

I can't think of a single use-case, other than consumer stubbornness, that can't be satisfied with current technologies, in a faster, cheaper and arguably more secure manner.

Sending a present.

Not wanting to send bank details by an insecure mechanism, e.g. email.

Old people that can't use the internet, for any/all of several reasons.

Having a paper trail accessible in 15 years time.

Small local charities can prefer to receive subscriptions/donations by cheque, since it is easier for the charity's treasurer.

No doubt there are others. You might not be able to think of them because they don't apply to you, but Martin Niemöller wrote a well-remembered poem that is relevant beyond its origin.

All of these sound less like "use cases" and more like excuses used by stubborn people who are resistant to change, as multiple, better solutions exist for each of these. I won't address all of them as I'm sure if you were faced with any one of these problems, you'd be able to find a suitable solution tomorrow.

The whole "paper trail" argument is moot. Cheques are no different to doing a bank transfer now. The withdrawal/deposit still occur in the digital realm and appear on the statement/transaction record. Cheques are just an "analog" disruption to what is already a digital solution. You're just adding a lengthy step in the middle; Going from digital to analog back to digital again.

In my experience, all the banks I've banked with allow customers to access up to 10 years' worth of transaction statements, instantly, online. If you need older, the bank can retrieve that for you. Most banks will also send out paper statements, if requested. Besides all that, you yourself can elect to keep all the paper trails you want by simply printing them yourself.

Evidence of money and proof of transactions extend far beyond a cheque stub these days, and have done for decades.

[David_AVD]

So having good infrastructure isn't the source of the speed, rather avoiding using the infrastructure is the key speedup.

That's not been my experience as both a consumer or as a seller.  Our old terminal was dial-up, but that was many years ago and it took about 30 seconds to approve / decline.

It was replaced with a LAN version, then most recently a 4G version. Now most transactions take about 5 - 10 seconds I'd say without timing it. Me keying in the amount and the customer tapping their card takes as much time as the authorisation.

[AndyBeez]

Anyone paying in crypto?

[Halcyon]

Anyone paying in crypto?

Maybe 10 years ago.

[David_AVD]

Anyone paying in crypto?

I saw some news the other day:
"Honda has announced a groundbreaking partnership with FCF Pay to accept cryptocurrency payments for their products."

[tggzzz]

In my experience, all the banks I've banked with allow customers to access up to 10 years' worth of transaction statements, instantly, online. If you need older, the bank can retrieve that for you. Most banks will also send out paper statements, if requested. Besides all that, you yourself can elect to keep all the paper trails you want by simply printing them yourself.

10 years isn't enough.

I know that here HMRC (Revenue and Customs) can demand paperwork (w.r.t. probate and inheritance tax) from 20 years ago[1]. Banks certainly don't keep statements available that long.

When daughter went to university I went and looked at my bank statements from when I was at university. I was able to see that her income-vs-expenditure was very similar to mine, with the exception of the "new" tuition fees. That gave us both the good feeling that she should be able to manage; she did.

[1] other timescales are 4 years for genuine mistakes, 6 years for carelessness, 12 years for “an offshore matter or offshore transfer”, 20 years for deliberate tax evasion

[tggzzz]

And bugger the others; they can go to hell.

Most people can see. Bugger the blind - it is uneconomic to enable them to be part of society.

I have no idea which part of my reply you're referring to.

Are you saying the blind can't use credit cards but they could use cheques?

The attitude that because some old people use newer tech, those that can't are somehow at fault - and can therefore be discounted and can be ignored.

No, that's you projecting that story line. I was merely pointing out that age / generation is not a general barrier. You're certainly getting your exorcise,  jumping to conclusions.

Here's the bit you conveniently snipped in order to make that claim....

My parents are in their mid - late eighties and use internet banking, tablets and smart phones, etc.

I don't know of anyone who has written or received a cheque in the last 5 years.

Tax refunds, etc all go straight back into your bank account.

Most of my customers use credit / debit card via the tap function, a few insert the card and a few use their phone / watch.

The phone / watch users are not always the young ones either. Some are in the 50 - 80 year old bracket.

The relevant proverb is "The race does not always go to the fastest, but that's the way to bet".

[Halcyon]

In my experience, all the banks I've banked with allow customers to access up to 10 years' worth of transaction statements, instantly, online. If you need older, the bank can retrieve that for you. Most banks will also send out paper statements, if requested. Besides all that, you yourself can elect to keep all the paper trails you want by simply printing them yourself.

10 years isn't enough.

I know that here HMRC (Revenue and Customs) can demand paperwork (w.r.t. probate and inheritance tax) from 20 years ago[1]. Banks certainly don't keep statements available that long.

When daughter went to university I went and looked at my bank statements from when I was at university. I was able to see that her income-vs-expenditure was very similar to mine, with the exception of the "new" tuition fees. That gave us both the good feeling that she should be able to manage; she did.

[1] other timescales are 4 years for genuine mistakes, 6 years for carelessness, 12 years for “an offshore matter or offshore transfer”, 20 years for deliberate tax evasion

Again, this comes down to the individual. I can't speak for banks in the UK, but I know for certain that Australian banks keep transaction records, at least in my case, way back to when the account was first opened, which was far longer than 10 years.

If you believe this is a limitation for you, then what's stopping you from storing/scanning/saving records yourself? They are all available. If it's a requirement for taxation auditing, you should be keeping appropriate records already, if you aren't, that sounds like a "you problem".

I see this as a secondary issue, not one about phasing out an old payment method. As I mentioned earlier, other options exist, it just requires some individuals to change the way they do things, as opposed to this mentality of "this is the way I've done things for 50 years, I'm not changing now".

[David_AVD]

Here's the bit you conveniently snipped in order to make that claim....

Damn, you got me (not). I should know better than to feed to trolls. lol

[coppice]

I find it amusing here when those ahead of me in the grocery checkout aisle take a much longer time to pay on-line than it takes me to pay cash.
(Of course, those who pay by check take even longer.)

What kind of antique validation systems do your stores use? There are places in the UK where a card takes 30s to validate a transaction, like its some 1980s dial up terminal. Those are used in places with infrequent transactions. However, in high traffic places, like supermarkets, where the transaction time really matters, it only takes a second or two, especially for tap and go transactions, where I don't even need to tap in a PIN.

Latency in increased where the terminal has to make a connection to something that will authorise the transaction. Connections via a cell phone make that particularly slow and annoyimg.

Latency is decreased where the merchant decides to "self authorise" a transaction without involving another part of the astoundingly complex (and expensive!) payments ecosystem. Supermarkets probably use a very local (=fast) algorithm like "PIN OK" and "previously used in this store without problem" therefore we'll assume it is OK this time".

So having good infrastructure isn't the source of the speed, rather avoiding using the infrastructure is the key speedup.

Er, no. I've accidentally let my current account run to zero a couple of times, and the supermarket rejected my payment in a second or two. I went to my phone, moved more money into my current account, reran the payment after the minute or two which that took, and it went through.

[Rick Law]

In a gov tax audit all proof is via paper evidence.

A canceled paper check is your best defense.

Jon

...
Evidence of money and proof of transactions extend far beyond a cheque stub these days, and have done for decades.

Physical check/cheque plus the transaction records kept by the bank is both convenient and definitive.

On one occasion, my "auto club" (road side assistant) claims I did not paid the annual club fee.  After multiple phone calls failed to resolve the problem, I went to the bank.  The bank faxed them front and back of the check image confirming that it matches the bank's record of transaction -- the back of the check has the endorsement and the date and bank id where the auto-club deposited the payment.  There is no more argument.  They credited my payment.

On another occasion, I had to pay a "pre-payment" during pre-admission tests (usually a week before admission to hospital for non-emergency)...  Long story short, they billed me again -- not a small amount, surgery is not cheap.
- I contested, they want proof of payment ...
- I forwarded the pre-payment receipt email they send me (containing the jpg image of receipt) back to them.
- They say "any body can cut and paste, show me your credit card statement...
- So I show them the credit card statement showing the charge on my card matching the emailed receipt.
- They say: "...you might have rejected the charge..."
- So I show them the following month's credit card receipt - no credit for rejected charges
That went on for over 6 months before final resolution to my favor.

I suspect the problem started because the patient was my wife and not me.  When I made the pre-payment, somehow it was credited to me as a new future-patient and not my wife (then current patient with an established account).  Then to complicate matter, they were acquired by and merged with another hospital around that time.

I don't trust digital records kept by others.  I suspect the hospital never exported the old database records to the new hospital's system.  We used to be able to logon to the old hospital's site to view prior stuff done like visits, blood test results,  pathology reports, so on.  Post merger, the new logon has nothing prior -- she is a new patient.

Good that I saved the pdf of the most important things.  In a discussion me and my wife had with the physician, I was able to show her (the physician) a print of the old cat-scan pathology report so as to point out certain changes.  That a cat-scan was done 3 or 4 years ago was unknown to the physician.  Seeing that printout, she (the physician) went to another room (I assume to access the old system), came back with more details on that cat-scan.  We were all glad I had that old printout.  Now we have an old cat scan to compare to the new.

One can be too easily erased when one's life has no physical evidence of existence.

[DimitriP]

I don't trust digital records kept by others.

   

I don't trust digital records kept by others

There you go, I fixed it

Self sufficient record  keeping may look like paranoia to others, but it's prudence and readiness for when Murphy shows up! 

[SiliconWizard]

Certainly, actually a bank not keeping records for longer than a certain time would be a feature for me, not a problem.
The two banks I use allow to download your transaction records over a certain period in CSV and other formats. Just download that, keep it yourself and you're all set.

[David_AVD]

From my perspective it seems like some of the "cheques are better than other payments" cases from the USA are indicative of USA banking issues in general that should be fixed ?

[tggzzz]

In my experience, all the banks I've banked with allow customers to access up to 10 years' worth of transaction statements, instantly, online. If you need older, the bank can retrieve that for you. Most banks will also send out paper statements, if requested. Besides all that, you yourself can elect to keep all the paper trails you want by simply printing them yourself.

10 years isn't enough.

I know that here HMRC (Revenue and Customs) can demand paperwork (w.r.t. probate and inheritance tax) from 20 years ago[1]. Banks certainly don't keep statements available that long.

When daughter went to university I went and looked at my bank statements from when I was at university. I was able to see that her income-vs-expenditure was very similar to mine, with the exception of the "new" tuition fees. That gave us both the good feeling that she should be able to manage; she did.

[1] other timescales are 4 years for genuine mistakes, 6 years for carelessness, 12 years for “an offshore matter or offshore transfer”, 20 years for deliberate tax evasion

Again, this comes down to the individual. I can't speak for banks in the UK, but I know for certain that Australian banks keep transaction records, at least in my case, way back to when the account was first opened, which was far longer than 10 years.

If you believe this is a limitation for you, then what's stopping you from storing/scanning/saving records yourself? They are all available. If it's a requirement for taxation auditing, you should be keeping appropriate records already, if you aren't, that sounds like a "you problem".

I see this as a secondary issue, not one about phasing out an old payment method. As I mentioned earlier, other options exist, it just requires some individuals to change the way they do things, as opposed to this mentality of "this is the way I've done things for 50 years, I'm not changing now".

It is indeed tangential to the issue of cheques.

Banks might or might not keep records for 50 years, but I'll bet it would be impossible to access them. I recently closed an executor account. The bank gave us a ZIP file of transactions, and now we can't access the statements online. Unsurprisingly we had anticipated that, and downloaded the PDFs before closing the account.

A relatively small number of people can't change the way they do things, for various reasons. Just saying "tough, I don't need it, sod off" is unacceptably inhumane. An analogous situation over here is that when "shared space streets" were introduced, they exclude blind people. Why? Because their guide (seeing-eye) dogs and long sticks require kerbs. An official response was "re-train the guide dogs", even though that is impossible. As a result regulations have been tightened to make shared space streets difficult to implement.

[tggzzz]

I find it amusing here when those ahead of me in the grocery checkout aisle take a much longer time to pay on-line than it takes me to pay cash.
(Of course, those who pay by check take even longer.)

What kind of antique validation systems do your stores use? There are places in the UK where a card takes 30s to validate a transaction, like its some 1980s dial up terminal. Those are used in places with infrequent transactions. However, in high traffic places, like supermarkets, where the transaction time really matters, it only takes a second or two, especially for tap and go transactions, where I don't even need to tap in a PIN.

Latency in increased where the terminal has to make a connection to something that will authorise the transaction. Connections via a cell phone make that particularly slow and annoyimg.

Latency is decreased where the merchant decides to "self authorise" a transaction without involving another part of the astoundingly complex (and expensive!) payments ecosystem. Supermarkets probably use a very local (=fast) algorithm like "PIN OK" and "previously used in this store without problem" therefore we'll assume it is OK this time".

So having good infrastructure isn't the source of the speed, rather avoiding using the infrastructure is the key speedup.

Er, no. I've accidentally let my current account run to zero a couple of times, and the supermarket rejected my payment in a second or two. I went to my phone, moved more money into my current account, reran the payment after the minute or two which that took, and it went through.

"One swallow does not make it summer".

I've never experienced any of that, but then I use a credit card not a debit card.

[tggzzz]

Let's sum up this thread...

• I don't use cheques, so they are useless
• I don't use cheques, so neither should you
• I don't need to use cheques, so there are no cases in which other people might need to use them
• I use expensive and fragile technology for banking, so you should too
• cheques are expensive to process:
• per cheque - no figures given
• in aggregate for all cheques - no figures given
• relative to other payment mechanisms - no figures given
• relative to the other expenses required in banking
• due to fraud - no figures given, either for cheque fraud or for frauds not involving cheques (Social engineering? What's that?)
• people that use cheques can be discounted and ignored, since they are old/inflexible/whatever

Those points are either unproven or morally and ethically repugnant.

I was taught to help and look after the less able and fortunate in society. Unfortunately the bastard libertarian "screw you, I'm alright" mindset has become dominant.

And we'll ignore the real financial benefits that CEOs and shareholders will get by removing cheques. I wonder why the banks don't mention those when they propose removing cheques?

[themadhippy]

so if cheques disappear what are all the lottery and competition winners going to hold up for publicity? a comically  over size screen showing an electronic transfer?

[tggzzz]

so if cheques disappear what are all the lottery and competition winners going to hold up for publicity? a comically  over size screen showing an electronic transfer?

Oooh! I hadn't thought of that use case

In other news a child has discovered that floppy disks are made to look like a wordprocessor's "save" hieroglyph icon, but has yet to realise why you dial telephone numbers.

[PwrElectronics]

I still use checks for a few monthly bills paid through the mail.  Some of those bills I setup for auto-pay due to the business poor habits of sending out the paper bill in the mail that would not get to me quickly and the due dates being too close that I was getting hit with late fees too often.  For "reasons" the US mail is getting slower in some areas.

I probably have not written one on the spot at a store for several years.  Some stores no longer will accept checks, only credit card or cash.

My observation is the folks writing a check at the till in a store tend to be elderly (age 70s or older).

[tggzzz]

I still use checks for a few monthly bills paid through the mail.  Some of those bills I setup for auto-pay due to the business poor habits of sending out the paper bill in the mail that would not get to me quickly and the due dates being too close that I was getting hit with late fees too often.  For "reasons" the US mail is getting slower in some areas.

I probably have not written one on the spot at a store for several years.  Some stores no longer will accept checks, only credit card or cash.

My observation is the folks writing a check at the till in a store tend to be elderly (age 70s or older).

Here that was only done with a "cheque guarantee card", which guaranteed the retailer would receive their money. They were phased out in 2011.

[Bicurico]

I used cheques in the past when buying or selling a house.

The cheques are authenticated by the respective bank, warranting that the respective funds have been captivated.

Paying in cash is not allowed for payments over 2000 Euro (here in Portugal) and hence these cheques are the only real secure way of transfering funds against a signature in the ownership papers.

Electronic transfers take one day so seller and buyer would have to trust a lot in using this.