No Checks Please, We’re British

Share This
Photo: schottjohnson
UK Banks Vote to Phase Out Paper Checks—Will the US Follow?
Somewhere in my files, there are photos of me holding up those giant checks that foundations love to hand out to charities. It was 1995 and I was raising money in Los Angeles for victims of the Great Hanshin Earthquake that leveled Kobe in Japan. Over the course of a few weeks, I lugged shopping bags full of checks—more than 10,000 donations amounting to millions of dollars—over to our accounting firm. The giant checks were great, but the bags of small, individual donations were like offering of personal prayers written on each slip of paper.
I’m not sure I would have felt the same sentimental satisfaction holding up a printout of a large electronic debit.
This week, the British banks governing the UK Payments Council decided to phase out their check clearing system by October 2018. In effect, they set an expiration date for the use of paper checks (or “cheques” as they prefer). In a statement, the group’s chief, Paul Smee, noted: “There are many more efficient ways of making payments than by paper in the 21st century, and the time is ripe for the economy as a whole to reap the benefits of its replacement.”
Like letters of credit, demands for payment and bills of exchange, bank drafts can trace their history to Roman times, when checks were known as “praescriptiones.” Paper drafts analogous to today’s checks were in use in the Islamic world in the 9th century and as early as the 12th century Templars honored pilgrims’ checks from one chapter house to the next. In England, clearing houses have had responsibility for settling checks since the early 1800s (before that they were often cashed in coffee houses).
Bankers complain that many British retailers don’t accept checks anymore, that young people don’t even have checkbooks, and that it’s costing them as much as a pound (about $1.63 today) to process every check. But the decision certainly has its critics—especially advocates for the elderly and small business owners. On one hand, a generation uncomfortable with electronics will be forced to risk carrying and handling more cash. On the other, mom and pop stores have one more disadvantage against giant competitors (some of whom are starting to act as banks themselves). The move will also put the “unbanked”, who have to pay fees to cash checks but also lack access to accounts capable of electronic payments.
Will the US Follow?
The cost of cash keeps going up while the cost of using credit cards and electronic payments keeps going down. More retailers accept credit cards than checks these days. But while US banks also worry about the costs of handling cash and checks, they aren’t likely to echo the UK decision any time soon. Yes, paper checks are increasingly rare in high-tech countries—whether advanced Scandinavian nations or developing/modernizing regions such as Africa—but the US doesn’t rate as high-tech when it comes to personal finance (present company excepted of course). It has lagged dramatically in the modernization of its financial traditions, such as implementing electronic payments, even compared to Britain.
Instead, US banks such as Bank of America and Chase have been investing in new ATMs that make it easier for customers to deposit checks without envelopes, deposit slips or extra keystrokes. In fact, a law known as “The Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act,” which took effect in 2004, made it easier for banks themselves to settle checks by exchanging scanned images electronically instead of physically managing and transporting paper.
The use of paper checks in the US may have peaked, but they aren’t evaporating in proportion to the explosive rise of electronic payments. According to Federal Reserve statistics, the number of checks written in the US has fallen—but only slightly—from an average of 112 per person in 1971 to 102 in 2006. While the number of checks written in the UK is only a third today of what it was in 1990, the decline isn’t quite as stark here in the USA. British check-writing peaked in 1990 at about 10.8 million drafts. Compare that to some 70 billion written annually in the US by 2001.
Perhaps one reason they aren’t falling more significantly here in the colonies is that we all seem to have so many more monthly bills and accounts these days? Inevitably some of those new store credit cards, nifty home utilities and specialist medical providers still have to be paid by check. And credit cards, electronic debits and automatic payments are easier but often come with service fees, interest charges or “gotcha” surprises. Also, many government institutions, landlords, utility companies and others still preclude (or penalize) electronic payments. It can cost hundreds of dollars to use a credit card to pay your income taxes. Meanwhile, many of us hate walking around with cash anymore, and wouldn’t want to keep more around for house cleaning and home repairs.
The federal government isn’t likely to encourage a return to an uncounted cash economy, either.
A Generational Issue
Using paper, plastic or electronics instead of cash is a generational issue, too. McKinsey & Co. found in a 2006 study that 54% of consumers still pay most of their bills by putting checks in the mail. Another study by Forrester Research found that 71% percent of people who don’t like to pay bills online would rather write checks and receive paper statement for their record keeping. The biggest group of such “traditionalists” is retirees, but regardless of age, most people consider paper to be safer for both security and accounting reasons. (Although a younger sampling might point out that a paper check reveals a lot of personal information, such as address and driver’s license number.)
The idea that electronic fund transfers are more prone to fraud may be more than just perception. As of last year, 76% of US banks reported losses due to debit fraud compared to only 56% losing money to check fraud.
Once, crossing a downtown parking lot on a rainy night, my eye caught two pieces of paper blowing across the concrete. They were checks, that appeared to have been endorsed, deposited and apparently in the process of being transferred from one institution to another. One was for only pennies, but the account belonged to a well-known celebrity. I didn’t recognize the name on the other, but the amount was for something like $55,000. The security department of the bank where the checks had been cashed took little interest, so…
Steve Barth blogs about work, play, society and politics at Reflexions.
Organize your financial life.
Use Mint.com to see where your money goes, get bill reminders and alerts, track your investment performance, and find extra savings. It’s FREE!
Find Out MoreHow Mint Can Help
See Where You Spend
Mint.com auto-categorizes all of your transactions so you’ll always know where your money goes. Find out more »
Popular Articles

18 Comments so far
leave a commentUltimately, this seems like a good step for the international banking system. There is no use to waste the time and cost for companies and banks to process paper checks. The recent laws in the United States that require digital check images be treated as a paper check was the first step here, in my humble opinion.
I work in the payment processing side of a very large company, and it would save us a lot of money, which could mean lower rates for our customers, if we only had to deal with .03 ACH transactions or cheaper EDI (electronic data interchange) rather than the much more expensive paper checks.
I am check free (no relation to the payment processor) for everything except my rent, and I am switching that over to bill pay this month. I will not have to write a paper check on a regular basis ever again.
Cheques are still probably the easiest way to give someone money in amounts larger than your wallet. At least on the givers end. The person still has to go to the bank to cash it, but they can do that on their routine trip. Are we suppose to make these people sign up for Paypal and go through all that just to send them money? I can’t exactly give me friend my credit card number to process money. Must I run to the ATM and withdrawal $1k in cash? The large scale issue of people using checks at stores trumps this minor issue. But still.
I use Bank of America’s online services. It allows me to transfer money to a friend’s account no matter what bank they use. And it doesn’t charge me a thing. I find this to be the most convenient way for both the giver and the receiver.
I think you’ve pointed out the only valid reason for keeping the check system, person to person transactions. While it’s currently possible to transfer money between individuals at little or no cost, the tools available are under developed. In a few years, person to person electronic transfers will be simple and common, and we’ll be able to drop the nasty paper check habit too.
Paper checks are old trend… its may be good, bocz of its long term performances with less issues…. but now it still waste time and not follows modern trend of money exchange……
Companies in the UK discount their prices when you use electronic payments, or to put it another way, they charge more for processing anything that doesn’t come out of your bank account even credit cards. The cost of a monthly bill could be as much as £10 more via cheque. It’s not just easier for companies to process, they also have control of the payments, so there’s no waiting for the customer to send the cheque.
Re U.S.A. Banking: Just a couple of issues with the claims and the realities of banking in the U.S. First of all, while it may be true that the clearing of electronic transactions is cheaper, for the banks, than cheques or even cash(?); that is not the case for the consumer!. For the consumer, credit transactions incur a cost. Whether it is a service charge or interest, there is cost for the consumer. Though there is indeed profit for the bank.
There is also often a cost for debit transactions. Whether it is a transaction or “convenience” fee, or a service fee from the bank or an increased product cost like gas stations; there is often a cost for debit transactions. Just this morning, I saw in the news that even credit unions, long known for their lack of fees, are starting to charge for PIN based debit transactions. Now there is an additional transaction charge for using a PIN!
Finally, there is the issue of electronic payments. While it is true that some/many banks offer free electronic bill pay services, many charge for the “convenience”. Even more common is the billers/service providers, or recipients of the funds, charging a fee for electronic bill pay options. As for direct transfers person-to-person, banks charge both ends of the transaction a significant amount for wiring funds.
Now some will argue that the banks need to/will reduce the costs of the electronic transactions and the U.S. will happily move away from cheques. But, what will really happen is that the banks will simply charge more and more for cheques and cheque processing services until it so far exceeds the also high transactions cost for electronic transactions, that people are forced to do their bidding.
They will force people to use electronic payment methods. They will reduce their cost and increase their fees generating more and more profit. All the while fleecing the consumer and whining about how tough it is to be in the banking business.
So how do I prove I sent the payment that you never received? And how do I prove I made that payment last year that you claim I didn’t send? And how do I pay for the additional cost of electronic payments when I can barely afford to pay for rent, food and heat?
It’s easy for some to dismiss the issues of a check free system. But it’s not trivial or simple for many. The elderly don’t understand email, but you want them to make electronic payments. Right! The low-income don’t often have bank accounts (which are free or nearly), but you want them to make electronic payments. When my bank says they are not liable for electronic payments that weren’t made, who do I blame? And please don’t get me started on the ridiculous foul-ups of financial institutions regarding my privacy and the security of my information. Now you want me to trust them with payment information for all my products, services and debt. Thanks, but NO!!! And, oh yes, when I provide access to my checking account via automatic withdrawal, who re-imburses me when payments continue to be made after I’ve cancelled a service or account with a vendor?
No thanks! I’ll keep my checks thank you. You can pry my checkbook out of my cold, dead hands!
Oh, and before you label me a technophobe, understand that I have a BS degree in computer programming and certifications in Cisco, Netware, Windows, SUN and SCO UNIX. I have been supporting enterprise systems for over 20 years for Prudential, Bell Atlantic, UNISYS, US Airways and GMAC. I have supported UNIX, Windows, networking and storage for one of the GMAC companies for over 10 years. I know a bit about financial institutions, their policies & practices and their systems.
NO THANKS!!!
Oh, and do I REALLY believe that banks will pass on the savings from a completely ACH based system to me, the customer? PuhLeeeese!!!
Yeah, just like the FREE ATM service they promised 20 years ago? Since they can employ fewer tellers they will pass on those savings to me? Now I get charged for nearly any ATM transaction. I actually have to go to certain convenience stores to get my money because they DON’T charge me for ATM transactions. So I’m paying to get my money out, fewer bank tellers are employed and the benefit to me is…?
Yeah, this check-free idea is definitely for MY benefit. Right. Sure. Uh huh. Gottcha.
British retail banks are some of the most profitable in the world, cheques are not being phased out to provide savings to the customers, but to boost their profit margins still higher.
My advice to all users of the UK banking system – write as many cheques as you can until they remove your ability to do so. Heck, send all your friends a cheque for 0.01p, oh and take a pin and punch holes through the bank routing numbers, so they are forced to hand process it… that should cost them even more.
Sure, it would probably be cheaper for the largest business to no longer have need to process paper checks but do you honestly believe that those businesses would give those savings back to customers in any way? Phasing out paper checks is a form of innovation that costs the consumer much more than they stand to gain and shouldn’t be attempted. Now, if you want to save money for the consumer how about we reduce the size and frequency of the print runs of new dollar bills in exchange for greater production of dollar coins. Anybody know how much it costs to make one $1-bill and how long such a bill lasts once put into circulation compared to dollar coins?
What about the cost of re-clothing from wearing those coins in the pockets.
The article is a little misleading, but in no way do I think it is intentionally so. I’m a Brit living in the states so I think i’m pretty well qualified to point out some discrepancies. Firstly, I don’t think the UK has the same problem of the ‘unbanked’. I was absolutely shocked to see people queueing to pay their monthly bills using cheques in the US. Last time I saw that was in Africa! I would say that it is extremely rare to find someone without a bank account that is capable of being used electronically. Is there a reason for this difference. I’m quite new to the US, so it could be just a case of me not understanding it.
The UK, in general, has no ATM fees, and there are groups of banks that allow no fee access. As noted in the article, the US is lagging behind when it comes to electronic service. I can transfer money to any other accounts for free in the UK. I can understand that people in the US would be resistant to the changes, but I think that’s because the banks here would capitalize on an opportunity to make more money, and still provide poor service.
There is scope for a much more convenient service, but I fear that the incumbent US banks would not allow it to happen. Regrettably, there is so much that could be done for customers with the technology but yet I don’t think it would be done for the benefit of the customers
.
Shaun – you know the technology could be useful, can work, and can be made more secure than the easily forge-able cheque. The issue here isn’t the tech, of which you’re aptly qualified to judge, it is the privacy laws, the business practices, and what people currently perceive as acceptable. Granted, that’s possibly a moot distinction.
it may end up being a smart idea, but a lot of people in the US still use checks because they are more comfortable with them
Maybe… just maybe someday the US will drift away from checks, but something has to be an intermediary. For example, folks without computers – lots of them – or even electricity (some of them) need some system. Cash may end up being the only option, but…
Example: We paid for our dental fees in cash to get a discount. Thousands of dollars. A debit card would not count. But a check. No problem.
Example: We have a single rental. We are not equipped to accept rent payment in other means than check. ACH is an option, but… we don’t feel comfortable giving out our bank information. Not yet anyway. Maybe someday this will change.
I have several friends who have with no computer. A computer in a library is not the best choice to manage your money. Maybe in 50 years no one will be without internet or a computer, but… I doubt it.
I am rambling. There will always be a place for checks. Or there will be something similar. Or… folks will make payment in cash or… money order? Dunno.
There are so many inexpensive ways for small businesses to process CC’s. Propay, Paypal to name just two. I have a side business, and it is always risky for me to take a personal check. It is horrible, that someone would hand me a piece of paper KNOWING there will be no money in the account for me to collect. I don’t take checks any more. I also have a laptop to compute a transaction ASAP to get a verification of my monies. Promissary notes should be abolished. I don’t even think credit cards are good, if you don’t have the money, you should not be spending it!
Welcome to the 21st century.
England is probably second last, in most other countries checks were phased out many many years ago and other automatic payment systems are in place.
You realise they have those systems in place already Sineira…
They are taking it one step further and removing checks completely.
They will be the first, not second last