 |
|
|
by Ubaldo Posted Sat June 6, 2009 @ 11:29 AM
|
|
|
I've bought many things at Target with my checking account for years but mostly items that totaled under $50. dollers or so. This week we tryed writting a check at Target for a TV. The total was $314.99 but was refused. The clerk was friendly and tryed running it through a number of times but it was still refused. The check machine printed a 1-88 number on the back of my check. He had the manager call the number only to find out they told her there were no issues with my checking account but would not accept it due to the high ammount. ($314.?!!) The person on the phone said I would have to provide the store with a "check writting history" but also admitted she did not know how that could be done. The store manager had an idea. I wrote one check for $175.00 and it went through fine. Another check was then written for the balance of the payment due and that too went through fine. Both checks went through by writting them with ammounts under the limit Target had set for writting one check. The store manager said she was surprised to find this out and would use it again for other customers who want to pay by check as opposed to credit cards, which they would prefer. It appears Target is doing whatever they want to do to discourage customers from paying by check.
Reply
|
|
 |
|
|
by Joyce2008 Posted Mon November 24, 2008 @ 4:42 PM
|
|
|
I am not surprised that Target did not accept your check. Although you have had the account for 4 years, any check number less than 500 IS considered a newer account. I know it doesn't make sense since some people don't write a lot of checks. Usually you can request a higher start number on your checks (500 or 1001) when you order them at your bank. Due to an increase in check fraud and account takeovers, it is important that checks have an address printed on them if you want them to be accepted by stores. The only places that accept checks like the ones you have are utility companies. They really should not have gotten an attitude with you and they should have explained it more thoroughly and shown you the store's printed policy on accepting checks.
Reply
|
|
 |
|
|
by eckounlmted609 Posted Tue February 12, 2008 @ 1:45 AM
|
|
|
I dont know why anyone even uses checks anymore? Let alone why they even offer them. But thats besides the point... I believe anything under 100 is a starter check, but they probably wouldnt have cared about that so much because they'll get there money if the check was good. But not having an imprinted address on the check is a risk because even if your showing ID and all that it doesnt prove that its really your account. I'm pretty sure its a industry wide practice of not accepting them because of the risk of fraud involved with that. You can most likely set up online bill pay threw your bank or the Target card which makes it a hole lot easier, or even if you have a debit card hit an ATM and take the cash out before you go to Target to pay your bill.
Reply
|
|

|
|
|
 |
|
by Adam W Posted Sun February 3, 2008 @ 11:24 AM
|
|
|
I can understand why this policy is in place. However, in your situation it is silly not to accept it. You were only paying your bill. You couldn't really rip them off since you wouldn't be leaving with any merchandise.
I paid in store before and decided it is easier to do it online. It took several days for the in store payment ot post. When I do it online it only takes a day.
Reply
|
|
 |
|
|
by robinbird Posted Sun February 3, 2008 @ 5:18 AM
|
|
|
Do you receive your Target Visa bill by mail? If so it might just be easier to just mail the payment using these same checks instead of paying in person. You can avoid the entire hassle by just mailing it in the pre-addressed envelope. I've never had a problem doing it this way when I have a new checking account and need to pay my bills.
Reply
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|

|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
by cissy Posted Fri February 1, 2008 @ 6:32 PM
|
|
|
I don't understand why the cheque was rejected. The store could have overridden the requirement for an address. It is only a payment on account. If the cheque was "phony" it wouldn't be credited to your account. Case closed. In saying that: why are people still using cheques? Debit is a more efficient way and usually less expensive. You must have had money in your bank or you wouldn't have written the cheque.
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Agreed
by Angela C Sun February 3, 2008 @ 9:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|

|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I think the concern should have been more over the lack of address than the check number. I didnt even think you could order checks without an address on them.
Here in Ohio, they run the check through the register and it is scanned (routing and account numbers at the bottom of every check) electronically so they dont have to worry about ensuring information is correct like they used to. Maybe your store has an older method they're using, although in this day and age, I'd be surprised if they were handling it that way.
I have a feeling there may be more to the situation than either you or the team members were letting on.
Reply
|
|
 |
|
|
by WarEagle04 Posted Fri February 1, 2008 @ 11:56 AM
|
|
|
Just more in a long line of dissatisfied, insulted Target customers.
Policies are important and vital to a business, but policy has to be sound and the people enforcing it should be allowed to use their brain. Every situation can be different, and for a multi-billion dollar corporation, sometimes it is okay to view the evidence presented (ID, bill, etc.) and say "okay, I will keep this customer happy and take the risk."
When/where the breaking point of the "risk" is what is the issue here, and I agree with Angela that the assessment of Target's managers on staff of the perceived risk was incorrect. Clearly an exception could have been made.
Also worth noting here is that in the modern credit industry, a considerable percentage of income is from fees and default APRs, etc. On this note, Target had very little to lose by accepting a check for payment on an existing Target Visa account. Worst-case scenario in case of a bad check is assessing a late/bad check fee and increasing the customer's APR to the godless rates.
Reply
|
|

|
Good Point
by Evil N Fri February 1, 2008 @ 11:14 PM
|
|
|
 |
|
by Marty5223 Posted Fri February 1, 2008 @ 9:11 AM
|
|
|
Wow....A lot of stores will not take Starter Checks...but in this case it was totally crazy not to take it. All they would have to do is charge your credit card back if the payment with the check did not go through. And on top of that add any fees they charge for return checks.
If you were attempting to cash the check or buy merchandise with it then there policy is sound...but so wrong in this case.
The reason stores don't take starter checks is because anyone could present them with ID and you would not know if they were really their checks or not. Point of ID in part is to match it with the name and address on the check. It is just very easy to do a fraudulent check transaction with these checks. However that said there is NO RISK for a credit card payment to be taken by a starter check.
Reply
|
|

|
Agreed!!
by Angela C Fri February 1, 2008 @ 8:57 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
by Jackie Wilson Posted Fri February 1, 2008 @ 2:47 AM
|
|
|
Actually if it was in payment for the credit card then
State I D and the visa card should have been enough. Since they all ready had the address or you would not have gotten the bill in which you were trying to pay, in
the first place.
Reply
|
|
 |
|
|
by Nicole F Posted Fri February 1, 2008 @ 1:37 AM
|
|
|
I can sort of see where the Target employees are coming from, but then again, I feel that perhaps they should have taken the check because it had a name on it, along with proper ID. They could have just written everything on it; after all, it's just a payment. Running it through the machine should work just fine. Perhaps they had some problem with people doing this? Perhaps it's a new policy? Perhaps they don't know what they are doing? Who knows...I think they should have accepted it.
However, I agree with the employee with regards to refusing to hand out his last name. It's none of your business and makes people feel threatened (I know it makes me feel that way) when someone whom I don't know wants my last name, particulary because it's a uncommon last name and I'm paranoid like that. All you will get from me and most other people in the retail business is our first name and our associate number--sometimes I don't even hand that out unless I did a transaction. I understand that they knew your last name because it was on the check, but you willingly gave it, but it doesn't mean the employee has to give theirs. Just my two cents.
Good luck.
Reply
|
|

|
|
|
 |
|

|
by Gino Posted Fri February 1, 2008 @ 1:29 AM
|
|
|
I honestly don't understand the store's stance on this issue. I have worked retail years ago, and one store's policy was similar to this. As a manager, I had the option to override with two forms of ID, one being photo, and only if it was not an out of state check. The checks we accepted were run though the register, which basically confirmed the routing number/account number, and if there were enough funds to cover the amount (without us knowing the balance).
I can see the clerk's action of pointing to the name tag and body language as percieved "rudeness". Perhaps if they had a written policy about check acceptance procedures, it would have been easier to take.
The fact that you can do "Check by Phone" tells me it can be done.
Reply
|
|
 |
|

|
by Adam D Posted Fri February 1, 2008 @ 12:57 AM
|
|
|
How stupid! Just another example of Target dropping the ball. You would think they would have some record of you making payments on a regular basis at that store. I hope you hear something reasonable back from Target!
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
by bernie r Posted Fri February 1, 2008 @ 12:17 AM
|
|
|
most of these big stores have Electronic Check Acceptance ( ECA ) and can tell you if your check is no good. if you had an id with you then they should of taken your payment
i use telecheck when a customer writes me a check, i put it in the machine and type in there id # and get a yes or no in 7 sec
Reply
|
|
|
|

|
|
|
 |
|
by T. C. Posted Thu January 31, 2008 @ 11:54 PM
|
|
|
All they had to do was run the check. If there was a problem the system should kick it out.
Reply
|
|
 |
|
|
by Angelic Princess:) Posted Thu January 31, 2008 @ 11:35 PM
|
|
|
If checks under #500 are considered starters.. then I've accepted ALOT of starter checks at work! haha, I know at my job, we technically aren't supposed to take checks, I believe, if it has a PO box on it as the address, so I just usually write in the address while the customer isn't looking lol.
Reply
|
|
 |
|

|
by donno Posted Thu January 31, 2008 @ 11:26 PM
|
|
|
Can be tricky. I know I have patronized establishments that do not accept checks without preprinted addresses. There isn't a good way to prove that is your check, and not someone else with the same name.
Reply
|
|
|
|

|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I just want to say... we have that wonderful rare find... a letter writer who can disagree with the criticisms of her complaint, or just parts of the letter, reasonably and respectfully, without the whole "why are you attacking me?" or nasty attitude back. I love OPs like this!
Reply
|
|

|
Thanks!
by Angela C Thu January 31, 2008 @ 11:36 PM
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
by Angela C Posted Thu January 31, 2008 @ 11:11 PM
|
|
|
Unfortunately there is no other TARGET in this area.. and this one is already out of the way... we would like to pay the bill and then shop around a little... now we have no reason to go out there .. we will use check by phone where your checks can be blank.. just need an routing number and account number... the automated system takes them with no questions asked - no attitude, dirty looks, or being treated like a criminal...
Reply
|
|
 |
|

|
by Gizmo. Posted Thu January 31, 2008 @ 10:49 PM
|
|
|
I agree that it is a silly policy to have, especially since you were just paying a bill. I mean, if a person pays a bill with a check that bounces, all the company would have to do is charge their account with a late fee and/or a bounced check fee.
But since it is their policy, I have to agree with them for sticking by it. When I worked retail, I wish I would have managers that would back me up in situations like this. I used to work at a grocery store, and one particular policy the company had was that we were not supposed to cash paychecks with P.O. Box numbers. Many people would try to cash them, and when I told them no, they would complain that "So and so" cashed it for them last week. They would then demand to see a manager. Well, our store manager was known to give in to every demand of the customers, so he would always make me cash them. Of course that would make most of these customers feel like "big guys" and they would then demean me during the whole transaction and tell me how I don't know what I'm doing, etc, even though I was just following corporate policy! And then to make it worse, the store's bookkeeper would always get on me the next day about cashing a check with a P.O. Box number! I would explain that the manager made me do it and they would always get mad at the manager beacuse their bank had a policy where if a check with a P.O. Box number bounces, they don't get credit for it. They lost a lot of money this way and I can't believe the corporate office never got mad at that manager.
Sorry that story was so long!
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
|
|
 |
|
by Michelle O Posted Thu January 31, 2008 @ 10:03 PM
|
|
|
the checks had no address, but DID have his name printed on them - is that correct? If so, you are absolutely correct and they are not starter checks.
I honestly don't understand the issue here - seems to me as though they were a bit over zealous in their attempts to protect their store. I would be frustrated too.
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|

|
by ♥Venice♥ Posted Thu January 31, 2008 @ 7:54 PM
|
|
|
Am I missing something here? The letter writer said it was not a starter check, which was the original reason they wouldn't accept it. It was only then that they made an issue over the address.
If the check was not up to Target's policies, I can understand them not accepting it for a purchase, but I don't understand why they refused to take it as payment on a bill. What's the worst that could happen?
Reply
|
|

|
Thanks!
by Angela Cook Thu January 31, 2008 @ 8:44 PM
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
|
|
 |
|
|

|
No Address
by Angela Cook Thu January 31, 2008 @ 9:09 PM
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
You can still use your checks if the address isnt correct. I take checks like that all the time at my store.
Also, why are you worried about his checks and not his license? Is his license blank too? I have never ever seen checks that werent starters that didnt have an address on them.
The trick about the numbers on your check is right, you choose the number.
Also, if you pay your bill online, you dont have to worry about it all, or use a 41 cents stamp!
Good Day
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I support businesses that don't accept "starter" checks or checks without addresses. The way around the "starter" checks is to order checks starting at a certain number--you can pick ANY number you want. I once started with something like 2501. The businesses don't know the difference.
But you do need to have an address on the checks. All you have to do is cross out the old address and write in the new. Businesses understand that people move and checks don't always arrive in time. I've done this tons of times without any hassles. But I'd never expect any business to accept a check without an address printed on it. That clerks accepted these repeatedly for a year shows that they either didn't care, or didn't know company policy.
I don't see how you were treated rudely. "No" does not equal rude. You were told repeatedly that your checks were not acceptable. I know they had been in the past, but they aren't now. It's time to accept it, order new checks (they're very inexpensive through places like Current) with your current address printed on them, and be done with it.
Reply
|
|

|
Umm OK
by Angela Cook Thu January 31, 2008 @ 8:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|