Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
A bit of a moral dilema ...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="susiestar" data-source="post: 464471" data-attributes="member: 1233"><p>Banking has changed a LOT from the days where it took 7 days to get a check through from the person/business you wrote it too. Now, while some businesses opt to use the old fashioned way, it is a banking regulation that checks are handled electronically and the $$ is removed from your account far far faster. That promissory note that they left sitting around actually is FAR closer to cash than it was in the past. There is no more "kiting" a check that you write and then have 2-3+ days to get the $$ into the account because one bank has to send it to a national clearinghouse and they send it to the other bank, often with several more steps in between.</p><p></p><p>Now most checks are handled electronically. H ave you ever written a check to walmart or a gas station or another place and they run it through a little reader and give it back to you? That $$ is out of your bank acct by the next morning, and it is a federal regulation that makes is the way checks are handled now, as a general rule. The readers are not as expensive as you might think, and they keep this sort of thing from happening. It is probable that the reader and training to operate it are probably FAR less expensive than insurance on deposits would be.</p><p></p><p>The fact that your check was not deposited by the city means the city has some explaining to do. They lose money for every day those checks are not deposited. It is NOT your fault that they were robbed, just as it wouldn't be if you gave them cash and that was robbed. This is simply NOT your responsibility. I realize the whole promissory note thing, and yes it is a small amount, but what incentive does the city have to be more responsible if they have no penalties? Why would they change how they handle funds and deposits so that this does not happen again if they don't suffer some loss? </p><p></p><p>I applaud your wish to be fair, but that has to go all the way around. WHomever let it be okay to leave the deposits in the box for days needs to be fired or demoted at the very very least. In our town there are a lot of heads that would roll, and in the small town we lived in back in OH the mayor, treasurer and whomever was supposed to take those deposits to the bank would all be doing some fast talking and would either lose jobs or would not be re-elected. </p><p></p><p>The fact that they gave you a reciept that says you paid that money to them means tehy KNEW how much they had in that box. WHile the thieves knew that everyone's $$ was due that day, so did the person in charge of all those checks and so did the person who runs the utilities. They made a CHOICE to leave those there instead of taking them ONE measly block to the bank. </p><p></p><p>YOU paid your bill on time. If they lost it, well, that is NOT your problem. If you give htem a second check, and the first one goes through because they found it or someone else did, if that first check bounces there is NO ONE who will give you the bounced check fee back, is there? You could ask for it, but the bank isn't going to do it and the city would add their own penalty onto the bank's fee. So you could be out easily three or four times the amount of the first check if you gave them a second one.</p><p></p><p>In this tight economy, there is NO room for stupidity and negligence, and that is what left the money in that box. It would be one thing if you didn't have a receipt that someone stamped as paid - then they could claim you didn't give them the $$ and they would have a good legal argument for you to pay it again iwth another check. But they DID have someone who gave you a receipt stamped PAID, meaning they got their $$. </p><p></p><p>I would be asking who is going to be held accountable for not taking the few minutes to take the money to the bank - and why they thought that was okay to do. EVERY town has a drug problem nowadays, no matter how small it is. This was inevitable if they left money in the box overnight. What are they going to do to make sure it doesn't happen again? in my opinion that is a far more important issue for you to worry about.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="susiestar, post: 464471, member: 1233"] Banking has changed a LOT from the days where it took 7 days to get a check through from the person/business you wrote it too. Now, while some businesses opt to use the old fashioned way, it is a banking regulation that checks are handled electronically and the $$ is removed from your account far far faster. That promissory note that they left sitting around actually is FAR closer to cash than it was in the past. There is no more "kiting" a check that you write and then have 2-3+ days to get the $$ into the account because one bank has to send it to a national clearinghouse and they send it to the other bank, often with several more steps in between. Now most checks are handled electronically. H ave you ever written a check to walmart or a gas station or another place and they run it through a little reader and give it back to you? That $$ is out of your bank acct by the next morning, and it is a federal regulation that makes is the way checks are handled now, as a general rule. The readers are not as expensive as you might think, and they keep this sort of thing from happening. It is probable that the reader and training to operate it are probably FAR less expensive than insurance on deposits would be. The fact that your check was not deposited by the city means the city has some explaining to do. They lose money for every day those checks are not deposited. It is NOT your fault that they were robbed, just as it wouldn't be if you gave them cash and that was robbed. This is simply NOT your responsibility. I realize the whole promissory note thing, and yes it is a small amount, but what incentive does the city have to be more responsible if they have no penalties? Why would they change how they handle funds and deposits so that this does not happen again if they don't suffer some loss? I applaud your wish to be fair, but that has to go all the way around. WHomever let it be okay to leave the deposits in the box for days needs to be fired or demoted at the very very least. In our town there are a lot of heads that would roll, and in the small town we lived in back in OH the mayor, treasurer and whomever was supposed to take those deposits to the bank would all be doing some fast talking and would either lose jobs or would not be re-elected. The fact that they gave you a reciept that says you paid that money to them means tehy KNEW how much they had in that box. WHile the thieves knew that everyone's $$ was due that day, so did the person in charge of all those checks and so did the person who runs the utilities. They made a CHOICE to leave those there instead of taking them ONE measly block to the bank. YOU paid your bill on time. If they lost it, well, that is NOT your problem. If you give htem a second check, and the first one goes through because they found it or someone else did, if that first check bounces there is NO ONE who will give you the bounced check fee back, is there? You could ask for it, but the bank isn't going to do it and the city would add their own penalty onto the bank's fee. So you could be out easily three or four times the amount of the first check if you gave them a second one. In this tight economy, there is NO room for stupidity and negligence, and that is what left the money in that box. It would be one thing if you didn't have a receipt that someone stamped as paid - then they could claim you didn't give them the $$ and they would have a good legal argument for you to pay it again iwth another check. But they DID have someone who gave you a receipt stamped PAID, meaning they got their $$. I would be asking who is going to be held accountable for not taking the few minutes to take the money to the bank - and why they thought that was okay to do. EVERY town has a drug problem nowadays, no matter how small it is. This was inevitable if they left money in the box overnight. What are they going to do to make sure it doesn't happen again? in my opinion that is a far more important issue for you to worry about. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
A bit of a moral dilema ...
Top