Blog article
See all stories »

An article relating to this blog post on Finextra:

UK bank u-turn sees cheques saved

Britain's banks have scrapped plans to get rid of cheques by 2018, backing down in the face of strong opposition from consumer groups, charities and politicians.


See article

How not to phase out cheques

People living in the majority of countries that do not use, or make limited use of, paper cheques will be mildly amused if they have been following the controversy in the UK around this archaic payment instrument.

For some, the future of the cheque is no laughing matter, however.

If you are not familiar with this story, it dates back to December 2009, when the UK’s Payments Council set a target date of 2018 for the abolition of cheques. This was a response to a steady decline in cheque use, and the fact that cheques are expensive to process. The USA, another heavy cheque-writing country, introduced the ‘Check 21 Act’ in 2004 specifically to reduce the cost of cheque handling.

If the Payments Council and UK banks had hoped the announcement of the future withdrawal of a payment instrument in decline would go unnoticed, they were wildly mistaken. Consumers’ groups, organisations representing the elderly, charities (who receive a large share of their donations by cheque) and other bodies spoke in unison to condemn the move.

Following the backlash, the Treasury Select Committee launched an inquiry into the issue in February 2010, and in July 2011 the Payments Council made a complete U-turn, announcing it was withdrawing its plans and that the cheque system would be maintained indefinitely. The Payments Council also said its members would now concentrate on improving cheque processing, cost reduction and the provision of other benefits by reducing the delays and uncertainties that affect cheque payments.

So what have we learnt – beyond how not to phase out cheques?

Firstly, there are some people and segments of society who depend on cheques on a regular basis, and who are genuinely concerned with the idea that they could be phased out.

Perhaps more importantly however, hoping that by announcing a date when cheques would be abolished would spur development of alternatives was naïve – consumers want to see alternatives first.

And herein lies the heart of the problem. While some of the concerned parties could use existing payment methods, for others no realistic alternatives are in place. If banks and technology providers work together to establish an effective and sustainable substitute, phasing out cheques will not be anything like so hard.


Reprinted from Banking Automation Bulletin

5810

Comments: (3)

A Finextra member
A Finextra member 23 September, 2011, 09:07Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

Yes. Saying paper cheques/checks are archaic is no different to saying paper money is old fashioned.  Cheques have been around for, well forever.  And who needs to send letters when we have email?

Mobile Money or Premium SMS would be my bet to 'slowly' replace cheques.  Get the Y generation texting their subscriptions, donations, payments and soon there is no need for writing and posting cheques.  But that's not going to happen is it.  There is something irreplaceable about a physical token that you can see and touch, that you sign, and that gets filed somewhere (these days scanned).

A Finextra member
A Finextra member 23 September, 2011, 11:17Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

Its also worth noting that, although they were the highest profile concerend groups opposed, charities, the aged etc are not the only groups who need viable alternatives to move from cheque use. Businesses, particularly micro and small businesses, write more cheques than consumers. They need products which allow them the same level of control as a cheque book currently does.

Ketharaman Swaminathan
Ketharaman Swaminathan - GTM360 Marketing Solutions - Pune 23 September, 2011, 14:00Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

There are precedents of banks using differential charges to trigger the desired consumer behavior w.r.t. method of payment and channel e.g. charges for making credit card payments by cash so that people pay electronically, higher charges for making a cross-border fund transfer by visiting the branch instead of doing it via Internet Banking, etc. That being the case, I've never understood why banks don't levy charges in proportion to the higher processing costs for cheques alongside giving credits for users who face downtime and confusion while using ePayments. We'll then have a basis of figuring out whether cheques are really more convenient as compared to its alternatives, and whether its alternatives really work as frictionlessly as cheques.

On another note, cheque is not the only form of paper-based payment instrument. I can think of at least one more, namely, the Ueberweisungsauftrag - or credit transfer order - that's quite popular in Germany. Banks convert them to electronic forms before forwarding them for clearing. Therefore, they're treated as ePayments, but, in the hands of the payors, they're paper-based. While they might not use cheques, users of such alternative instruments in such countries are unlikely to be amused with what's happening in UK or find cheques so archaic. 

Felix Kronabetter

Felix Kronabetter

Business Development Manager

RBR

Member since

06 Dec 2006

Location

London

Blog posts

6

Comments

7

This post is from a series of posts in the group:

Payments strategies 2015-2020-2030

Payments systems visions, strategies, trends, pilots, forecasting, and planning for the short-, medium-, and far-term.


See all

Now hiring