A short time ago I accepted a $300 personal check as partial payment for a vehicle. Rather than depositing the check in my B of A account, and running the risk of a bounced check charge from my bank if it failed to clear, I took it to Chase Bank, which it was drawn on to cash it. Since I was not a Chase customer, they nailed me for $5 to cash the check. Their rationale was that they were providing a service to a non-bank customer. In bit**ing about this to my friends, I was told that most, if not all banks have this rapacious policy. I am considering donning my Crusader Rabbit costume, and pursuing this with the AZ Banking Department and any other regulatory agency in the loop. Have I lost my mind?

Wll you took a 300 dollar personal check for payment on a vechile, so yes just that tells us you have lost your mind.

But it is a good cause, we all need our windmills to fight against, Bank charges are one of them,

That is a funny post... seeing as I'm actuallly a Branch Manager for JP Morgan Chase!!

When you cash a check anywhere unless you are a member of the bank there is a cash checking fee.

What is the injustice? You paid for a service. They have a right to make a profit. You have the right to go somewhere else.

The point that I tried to make is that I was NOT free to go elsewhere to cash the check. Citibank will not cash a check drawn on Chase. If I deposited the check in my B of A account, I ran the risk of incurring perhaps a $25 charge if it was NSF. In fact Chase was providing a service to their customer, for which that customer pays a monthly fee. :)

Except you ARE free to go to your own bank. You always had that option... but you were unwilling to because you feared that the check would bounce. THIS is not the fault of either bank, but you.

Yes, Chase was performing a service for their customer. You are not their customer.

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.:)

I don't think it is ethical, might be legal, for a bank to charge a fee to cash a check drawn on them. The bank is providing a service for the writer of the check.

The next time call the bank and see if there is enough funds to cover the check. A bank will give you that information. If there is enough funds, then run it through your own bank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoightoider

I don't think it is ethical, might be legal, for a bank to charge a fee to cash a check drawn on them. The bank is providing a service for the writer of the check.

The next time call the bank and see if there is enough funds to cover the check. A bank will give you that information. If there is enough funds, then run it through your own bank.

---

You cannot call a bank and request information on an account of which you are not a signer. To protect the privacy of the customer, no such information will be released. Furthermore, if you attempt the cash the check at the another's bank, of which you are not a signer, and funds are insufficient, the teller/banker "should" tell you simply that he or she cannot cash the check at that time and refer you to the remitter. Any additional information is considered a compoimise of account information,
JPM Chase Branch Manager.

Should have taken the check writer with you to his bank at the time he wrote you the check and had him give you the $300.

This seems to be the status quo for banks these days. I agree that the service is provided to the HOLDER of the account, and that banks should cash checks drawn on their accounts for no charge, as long as people show the proper ID. Banks used to do this routinely. But banking has changed so much now that the fees seem to be inevitable. Sometimes you can get around this charge if you have a credit card from the bank (especially if it's a big bank like B of A or Citi).

Since check was written after hours, Wayne's solution was not possible. Todd's idea is good. I have a Chase CC, but did not think to present it.:)

It is totally unethical. The bank is holding the money for their customer. Their customer executes a financial instrument conveying part of that money to a 3rd party. The bank on which that financial instrument is drawn is the ONLY entity that can ultimately pay that check. The 3rd party may NOT even have a bank account anywhere. The bank is obligated to pay the financial instrument generated by their customer, and, as others have pointed out, they are already charging their customer various fees for having the account. Take the example where the bank customer writes a $5 check to a 3rd party who doesn't have any bank accounts. The 3rd party would have no way on this earth to cash that check. The bank would cash it and keep the whole thing for the fee. GIVE ME A BREAK, WHAT IS THIS COUNTRY COMING TO??

If the 3rd party deposits the check in his bank, then his back will ultimately present the check to the bank upon which it was drawn for payment. THEY DON'T CHARGE THE BANK FOR PAYING IT, SO WHY SHOULD THEY CHARGE THE 3RD PARTY. THE OTHER BANK ISN'T THEIR CUSTOMER EITHER!! IN FACT THE OTHER BANK IS THEIR COMPETITOR!! FIGURE THAT OUT!!

There is no requirement or law that obligates a bank to cash a check for a non-accountholder. The OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) notes that banks may choose to cash the check for a non-accountholder, and those that do so may choose to charge a fee for the service.

Likewise, it the also the choice of the payee who received the check where they negotiate it (either by deposit, or by cashing it).

Banks that cash non-customer checks must maintain higher average cash levels in their vaults than banks that do not cash customer checks, in order to meet these non-accountholder cash request. Larger national banks must carry a proportionately larger cash level per branch than smaller banks due to the larger number of check-writers. Moreover, they must do so at EVERY branch they operate that provides this service to the non-accountholder. The additional currency that must be maintained in the vaults could otherwise be invested by the bank if not reserved for check-cashers. At large national banks (those most likely to be seen charging this type of fee), the amount of non-invested cash is substantial. This represents a hard cost to the bank, and the bank is entitled to defray that cost through the charge for cashing the checks.

Non-customer check cashing also takes (paid) time from teller staff and supervisors that could be given to bank customers, and these transactions also contribute to longer wait times for the customers of the bank.

It seems odd that people cry foul so vigorously on this point when they so readily accept the notion of paying an ATM surcharge for withdrawing cash from another bank's ATM. The bank paid a large sum for ATM equipment, installation, cash supply, and servicing. They do so for the benefit of their own customers. If a non-accountholder chooses to use their ATM, they are charged a fee (usually $2.00 or more, and usually for withdrawals as low as $10.00 or as high as $500.00). If they do not want to pay the fee, they cancel the transaction, but most proceed and probably do not call to complain about the charge.

Similarly, when a bank builds a branch, it pays a monumentally larger dollar amount for the building, equipment, staff, money supply, and servicing. They do so for the benefit of their customers. Yet if a non-accountholder chooses to use that branch to cash the check instead of using one of their own bank's branches, they are charged a fee. They can refuse and cancel the transaction as well. But this seems to escalate immediately to a complaint despite the parallel. If it is a $5.00 fee for a $1000 check... that is a 1/2 of a percent. A $2.00 fee for a $20.00 ATM withdrawal is 10%. Why is this fee such a hot-button?

You miss the whole point. The check is drawn on their bank. They ultimately have to pay the check to someone (the 3rd party who received the check from their customer, or the 3rd party's bank when it is presented for payment). Comparing it to an atm transaction is like comparing apples to oranges, not the same at all. If i get a check as payment from someone and i don't have a bank account anywhere, the only place on earth that can cash that check is the bank it is drawn on. Why should they charge me for honoring their customer's financial instrument? It just doesn't make sense. It has nothing to do with whether i am their customer or not. They have an obligation to honor their customer's financial instrument, whether it be in person or through another bank.

Also in response to JOEDLAN, Your comments about the huge expense to install ATM's etc. is also way off. I worked in the banking system many years, and ATM's were cost justified from the savings achieved due to lower personnel needs (salary & benefits), way back when ATM's were first invented. I'm sure that hasn't changed. I don't have a problem paying a fee to a bank where I am not their customer; that actually makes sense to me. I do think some of the banks charge too much.

Any bank should have enough funds on hand to pay their customers checks without charging for having those funds Joedlans argument is a defense for the entire banking liabilities and does not justify a bank gouging on a check written from them and I personally checked with 3 banks I do business with and they do not do this practice (everone who walks through that door is a customer it would be foolish to chase away business with bad practice).I would not do business with banks that do non ethical transactions and eventually they will change their ways and give the great services they all promise.

Signed,happy with my banks.

Any bank should have enough funds on hand to pay their customers checks without charging for having those funds Joedlans argument is a defense for the entire banking liabilities and does not justify a bank gouging on a check written from them and I personally checked with 3 banks I do business with and they do not do this practice (everone who walks through that door is a customer it would be foolish to chase away business with bad practice).I would not do business with banks that do non ethical transactions and eventually they will change their ways and give the great services they all promise.

Signed,happy with my banks.

This really ticks me off too! To the point of a 150 fine for disorderly conduct. It seems to me that the maker of the check has an agreement with their bank that their checks will be paid upon presentation to them for payment. If so, then what service is it? Its no service to me but their obligation to their depositor to pay the sum they tell their bank to pay when they write the check. It seems to me that joe the payee should not be mistreated anymore than the big banks who present the checks for payment from their depositors. In any event isn't the holder of the check to be paid cutting out the middleman of another bank to present the check for them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fastfun1

That is a funny post... seeing as I'm actuallly a Branch Manager for JP Morgan Chase!!!

---

It's not that funny, you lame-brain!!

I'd rather pay $5 and get the money then put it in your bank, have it try to clear, and it bounces. Then you will have to pay a reclamation fee of $15 which is 3 times more and not have your money still. Or better yet, you spent the money and then the bank debits your account because the check bounced... hmm, the $5 sounds pretty darn good now.

A tad late, but if you can do anything to them go get them!

To everyone defending the bank... does Chase charge Bank of America a fee or vice versa? If he had deposited the check in his account with BofA would Chase charge BofA a $5.00 fee when they presented the check for payment or does BofA have an account with Chase?

Please answer that one Chase branch manager!

A tad late, but if you can do anything to them go get them!

To everyone defending the bank... does Chase charge Bank of America a fee or vice versa? If he had deposited the check in his account with BofA would Chase charge BofA a $5.00 fee when they presented the check for payment or does BofA have an account with Chase?

Please answer that one Chase branch manager!

Screw banks... become a credit union member...

The citation to the Comptroller of the Currency and Federal Law - as most have indirectly noted - misses the point. It's a matter of contract law and the law of negotialble instruments the shoiuld control, i.e. the contract between the depositor and his or her bank which should require that it honor properly presented checks drawn on good funds. If I write 30 checks a month to my creditors and they all present them to the bank without themselves having an account there - I should anticipate adding $150 to my monthly payments for "shorting" my creditors $5 each. As I build a house - shudder to think the additional thousands if all of the checks for labor and materials were presented to my bank and I had to pay another $5 to each payee who was otherwise "shorted." Short answer would be a different banking arrangement with a local bank who valued my business and understood they couldn't hide dishonesty behind "policy" and expect to survive much l much less thrive as a local bank.

<soap box mode on>
I've been playing this game with a bank here. Even with my cafeteria plan account they want to charge me . THIS IS MY MONEY FOLKS. Money that I elected to have put into this account from my paycheck. I am the only one that checks are written to on this account and still they charge me $5. It is NOT a security/forgery issue as someone has mentioned here, they usually require 2 ID's and a thumbprint. That should be sufficient. If the tellers are not smart enough to realize that the person standing in front of them is not the person on the ID, then they shouldn't be working in a bank. If they would just admit that it is pure greed, I would be happy with that answer. But you know they won't. The canned response is "It's just our policy". Someone above stated the fact that the law does not require a bank to cash such a check, and they have the legal right to charge for it. Still doesn't make it right. In Idaho it's legal to put your kids in the back of a pickup truck and go down the freeway at 75mph as long as the anyone in the cab has a seat belt on. It's legal, but it doesn't make it right. A little common sense goes a long way folks, and big business has forgotten what common sense means.

Here's the answer for most banks. Ask them if there is a minimum amount of the check that they will charge you for. In my case it is anything under $50 they will not charge the fee. In my case for the cafeteria account, I just have the payroll gal write me several checks for $49.99. It really ticks of the bank manager which is worth it! Not only does it waste the tellers time cashing all those checks, but I get the satisfaction of walking out with a S**t eating grin on my face. I hate big banks. My bank does NOT charge this fee to non-account holders. I refuse to hold an account on a bank that does, as I do not want my friends/family to have to pay the fee when I write them a check. Ok, I'm done venting... <soap box mode off>

In my dispute with pnc, I repeatedly pointed out that the uniform commercial code states that a check is payable upon presentation to the bank and I am presenting it to them and I expected payment. The banker just acted like a dumb moron.

Sure because I bet you never paid a fee in your life its not right to charge people to cash there own check and its also not nice to make fun of the poor that's what your doing right there now you're a fatcat the fee never does anything to you

Because you got more money then anyone has that's why your not against it but us poor people you sure pick on us you don't post to charge someone to cash there own check I will soon have it stopped once and for all no wonder the world is losing money

Don't you all know that there's familys out there that have low income every month time they cash there check the banks are getting $ 5 dollars per check that's really not fair at all making fun of the poor if it wasn't for people like us banks would not be in business today they should be happy it's the people that counts nothing more this sorry world is losing money everyday what does the banks do with all that money they make off people everyday hmm they keep saying they are not helping people with getting loans out the banks makes over million dollars off people with this check cashing scam trying to black mail people in getting a checking account from them so they can charge you for overdrafts that's how banks work so they can get more money off you so they can stay in business all of you never say anything about it because you got more money then some people like me I am a poor person that gets low income every month only reason I am here to stand up for what's right and what is wrong if you all believe this black mail scam its your business but it will soon be stopped once and for all

Absolutely rediculas any bank can charge a fee to cash a check drawn on that same bank! That check is legal tender. Mr. Bank manager of JPM Chase your rediculas and should check yourself. Banks are raping the consumer will all these frivolous fee's and have forced congress to make laws governing what banks should have been doing out of common decency all along. This is a prime example of why we have to go to extremes and regulate businesses which should be left alone.

Mister Branch Manager for no bank, you need to check your actual facts before you make a claim like that.

In fact, any person who accepts a check from another person or company is free to call the issuing bank, and verify that sufficient funds are available to cover the check. The bank teller you speak with will simply tell you yes or no, and ask for the number of the check.

Been there, done that a LOT of times!