Bank and clearing of Sterling cheque

Billy Bunting

I recently loaned a family member a sum of money that i gave to them via a Stirling cheque, i gave them what should have been the correct amount or close to it according to the exchange rates on the day i wrote the cheque, Ulster bank drew the funds 2 days later from my Stirling account and held onto those funds for near 7 weeks claiming it was money laundering procedures, the long and the short of the story is that it cost me a further €350 to top up to the required loan because in 7 weeks Stirling had taken a dive.
I do understand that currency markets fluctuate but surely Ulster bank got top rates 7 weeks previously and should have past that on, is it just me or would other members see this has another banking scam.

RachaelVO

The money laundering thing is a total bogus excuse, I know it happens, but it's not very common with personal cheques and it usually (not always) comes into play mostly when it's cash. If it's coming from a personal account, it seems to me to be on a bit of dodgy ground.

It was probably also the cheque thing. Banks will use that as an excuse to delay a lot of payments. An electronic transfer may have been a better option.

You should as them what criteria they used to determine whether it was money laundering, and ask what their exact procedures to determine whether it was money laundering, and why it took so long. I'd complain to whoever I needed to complain to (ombudsman)!

unclebill98

People who lodge stg chqs that do not normally are required to have them sent on a collection basis. UB did not hold onto these funds for seven weeks, In fact the chq does not go through an account. The issuing bank then ok'd the chq and sent UB the funds at the rate on the day. Not the rate of seven weeks previous.

I fail to see how they even managed to debit your stg account two days later. If that was the case then the euro funds would have been lodged and you would have gotten the exchange rate of that day. If that was the case then UB put a hold on the funds till the chq fully cleared but still the rate would not have dropped.

So somethings not adding up.

Billy Bunting

The cheque cleared my Stirling account 2 days after i wrote it, i phone to check that there were no problems. It was finally paid into a Euro account 7 weeks later at a completely different rate.

unclebill98

RachaelVO wrote: »

The money laundering thing is a total bogus excuse, I know it happens, but it's not very common with personal cheques and it usually (not always) comes into play mostly when it's cash. If it's coming from a personal account, it seems to me to be on a bit of dodgy ground.

It was probably also the cheque thing. Banks will use that as an excuse to delay a lot of payments. An electronic transfer may have been a better option.

You should as them what criteria they used to determine whether it was money laundering, and ask what their exact procedures to determine whether it was money laundering, and why it took so long. I'd complain to whoever I needed to complain to (ombudsman)!

Your post is full of mis information. Personal chq, including fx chqs are rampant with fraud and account for a lot of money laundering. The bank do not have to explain the money laundering thing, in fact your never even aware if you are under investigation. As for the ombudsman, the op must go throughout UB complaints procedure before then.

Billy Bunting wrote: »

The cheque cleared my Stirling account 2 days after i wrote it, i phone to check that there were no problems. It was finally paid into a Euro account 7 weeks later at a completely different rate.

Ok, like I said it does not adding up. So there has to be something wrong.

The seven week thing only happens if the chq is sent on collection. Meaning the euro account does not get funds until the chq clears so hence the difference in the rate.

What your saying means the chq was accepted for lodgement into the euro account. They made them wait seven weeks for the chq to fully clear. If they where going to make them wait then they should have sent it on collection, it would have come back as cleared funds much sooner than seven weeks.

So, there should have been no difference in the rate. They would have gotten the rate of the day it was lodged.

So like I said something is not adding up. There is more to this. You need to ask UB for a clearer explanation.

Billy Bunting

If the funds hadn't been removed from my Stirling account i wouldn't be making an issue, the fact the money was taken from me and held for 7 weeks is the issue, it certainly doesn't add up, and yes the term "sent on a collection" was used in the mumbo jumbo waffle that was given to me as an excuse along with also being told that they couldn't discuss it fully under data protection as it concerned the person the cheque was issued too. :rolleyes:

unclebill98

Well only they can get to the bottom of. Unless you know there banking business your just going to be out of pocket.

It just stinks of something your not being told.