Fast Offering check not clearing because vendor electronically deposits the check?

Discuss questions around local unit policies for budgeting, reconciling, etc. This forum should not contain specific financial or membership information.
lajackson
Community Moderators
Posts: 11839
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:27 pm
Location: US

Post by lajackson »

thrust wrote:@lajackson: You are stating that all Church checks must be physically deposited at the bank the old-fashion way. Why has the Church not explained and trained us through MLS/CUBS training, posts through this forum or messages sent through MLS/CUBS? Why is there no example or form letter that we could use to send with the checks to vendors?

Because this is not your problem. Yes, it becomes your problem because those receiving and processing the check have not been trained. But those who process checks electronically should have been trained on the proper handling of a corporate check with two signatures. They are mishandling it when they try to e-process it, they are not following proper banking procedures, and their representatives have not been taught what to do to approve and clear the check.

The vendor still has the option to refuse the check, and they take that option at the first sign of a problem, rather than properly handling the situation so that a corporate check can be used.
thrust wrote:I also have thought about not including my phone number at the bottom of the letter, but instead put CHQ Finance phone number for the vendors to call since CHQ is making it very difficult for vendors to deposit F.O. checks.

I think your letter is good. I would use the phone number on the check and tell them if they have any questions to call that number.

And remember, the Church is not making it difficult for vendors to deposit FO checks. Vendors are not following standard banking procedures. Some have not made themselves aware of those procedures, but anyone in business should be. And a large corporation or utility should most certainly know how to handle the situation. Alas, they also have new folks at the gateway and do not train them sufficiently.
thrust
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:16 am

Post by thrust »

Thank you @lajackson. I never knew of the banking industry rule that if a check has two signatures that is cannot be electronically deposited, but rather physically deposit. Your explanation makes sense now. I googled a few searches to see if there was anything out there regarding not electronically depositing a check with two signatures. I did not find anything substantial. Is this a nationwide banking policy or CHQ Zion's Bank policy?

I am thinking of adding this information to my letter, but want to get clarification that it is a nationwide banking policy first.

Also, why hasn't CHQ explained this issue and/or trained us on this issue? This has been going on for years.
lajackson
Community Moderators
Posts: 11839
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:27 pm
Location: US

Post by lajackson »

thrust wrote:Is this a nationwide banking policy or CHQ Zion's Bank policy?

Banking law is complex, governed by both state and federal laws, and way beyond the scope of this forum. If you are interested, start here.

Uniform Commercial Code Articles 3 and 4.
Federal Reserve Regulations J and CC.
Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
thrust wrote:Also, why hasn't CHQ explained this issue and/or trained us on this issue? This has been going on for years.

I think because ultimately the bank gets to decide what happens, and not the Church. The bank always has the option of refusing to accept the deposit of a check. This is true of my personal checking account, as well. And there is a whole 'nother set of rules when an agent accepts a check on behalf of another company, which then deposits the check into the company bank account.

As I said, banking law is complex, . . . [grin]
RossEvans
Senior Member
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Austin TX

Post by RossEvans »

thrust wrote: Also, why hasn't CHQ explained this issue and/or trained us on this issue? This has been going on for years.

I have to wonder why, if this is a general problem, I have never encountered it. As finance clerk for a very large ward with a disproportionately large volume of fast-offering payments for several years, I have never experienced the symptoms you describe -- our checks to vendors bouncing for "insufficient funds." As I mention above, I have experienced several mysteriously "outstanding" checks, but that seems like a different case entirely.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 36323
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Post by russellhltn »

thrust wrote:I never knew of the banking industry rule that if a check has two signatures that is cannot be electronically deposited, but rather physically deposit.
I think it's related, but not that specifically. Now that I think about it, I believe there are at least two 'electronic' systems. The first is the kind where you can set up automatic payments, or pay your credit card via a website, etc. It's a "data only" transaction.

The second includes a image of the check. That's how a check deposited at a bank would be processed.

I know that's how it shows on my own personal account. The category 1 items are "EFT" - Electronic Funds Transfer, while the second type actually shows me an image of the check and has a check number that came from my checkbook. I suspect the church does not honor the first kind, but only the second kind. They have to have an image of the check since wards are not authorized to do any kind of EFTs.

Payment systems that only OCR the check for the numbers to create the first kind of transaction will fail.

RossEvans wrote:I have to wonder why, if this is a general problem, I have never encountered it.

It's possible that the payment vendors in your area are more "with it" then thrust's, influenced in part by how many times they've had to accept a business check.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
RossEvans
Senior Member
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Austin TX

Post by RossEvans »

RussellHltn wrote:It's possible that the payment vendors in your area are more "with it" then thrust's, influenced in part by how many times they've had to accept a business check.

But I have made lots of payments to at least some of the same national cellphone vendors with whom thrust reports problems.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 36323
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Post by russellhltn »

RossEvans wrote:But I have made lots of payments to at least some of the same national cellphone vendors with whom thrust reports problems.

I wonder where it's being processed. A big company-run store or some little independent? If it's mailed to the main office, I'd expect it to work. Go to a little kiosk, it could be dicey.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
RossEvans
Senior Member
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Austin TX

Post by RossEvans »

RussellHltn wrote:I wonder where it's being processed. A big company-run store or some little independent? If it's mailed to the main office, I'd expect it to work. Go to a little kiosk, it could be dicey.
That could be a factor. If we are paying a utility vendor (local or national) our preferred practice is to mail the check ourselves, together with the vendor's own "please return this portion with payment" stub, and to include the account number in the check memo line. But occasionally a recipient will need to take the check personally to a counter somewhere.
lajackson
Community Moderators
Posts: 11839
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:27 pm
Location: US

Post by lajackson »

RossEvans wrote: If we are paying a utility vendor (local or national) our preferred practice is to mail the check ourselves, together with the vendor's own "please return this portion with payment" stub, and to include the account number in the check memo line. But occasionally a recipient will need to take the check personally to a counter somewhere.

In our area, most counter services will not accept the checks because they will not clear electronically, but we have never had a problem when we mail the check to the payment address. The bishop precedes the mailing with a phone call to customer service to inform them the payment is on the way. This usually keeps the service from being cut off for a few days of mail time.

Return to “Local Unit Finance”