Bring back the old days

bendix

legless wrote: »

Nobody today works as hard as 20 to 30 years ago but want more money

And milk tasted better in the old days, didn't it legless? And strawberries. And you could get fish and chips for a shilling.

And you never saw any darkies on the streets. It all changed when they arrived.

And them there omosexualists - well, they wuz illegal wuzn't they.

And even though our kids died of polio and smoked liked chimneys and power was rationed .. . . oh, we were happier then, werent we? What with street fetes and Hitler and stuff.

Ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

legless

I am only talking about Banks and if you think they are alot better then just look at how the Country is doing. I surpose it is nothing to do with them

jack_spratt_2

I am afraid that is the way banking works at the moment they think they are doing you a favour allowing you to open an account with them !! its always best to make an appointment and ask what means of identification they need !!!

I am sure opinions4u would not take that attitude if it was some other industry than banking and that is why we get such bad customer service from companies it is because people will put up with it !!

I am sure I am not the only one that has spent 30 minutes queuing in a bank or building society at lunch time with one cashier on the desk and three employees standing in a huddle at the help desk discussing what they did last weekend and when you suggest they open another till up they tell you that they cannot as it is not on the rota to put anyone else on

Money laundering regulations are the problem and also bank employee are not of the same calibre of the past you are more likely to be promoted on your sales figurers not on your efficiency or knowledge of the banking system

withnell

jack_spratt wrote: »

I am sure I am not the only one that has spent 30 minutes queuing in a bank or building society at lunch time with one cashier on the desk and three employees standing in a huddle at the help desk discussing what they did last weekend

Maybe they were on their lunch break?

jack_spratt_2

withnell wrote: »

Maybe they were on their lunch break?

Being at lunch time that would be a strong possibility :rotfl:

But would it occur to the more intelligent that there customers may be on a lunch break as well and maybe need to do some transactions at the bank and maybe stagger the lunch breaks or working hours to cover the needs of the customers !!

Just a thought !! but common sense and banking do not seem to mix :laugh:

Aegis

jack_spratt wrote: »

Being at lunch time that would be a strong possibility :rotfl:

But would it occur to the more intelligent that there customers may be on a lunch break as well and maybe need to do some transactions at the bank and maybe stagger the lunch breaks or working hours to cover the needs of the customers !!

Just a thought !! but common sense and banking do not seem to mix :laugh:

They do stagger the lunch breaks, but when you consider that many bank branches will only have, say, three trained cashiers, then if one goes on holiday or off sick (likely to be the case for at least a third of the year if you assume that the cashiers are allowed off only one at a time) you're left with two, each of whom needs a lunch break. As such it's fairly easy to see how a headcount of three cashiers can easily be reduced to one person serving at certain times.

"Common sense" would dictate that other staff could be subbed in, but that would result in increased training costs to bring the replacement cashiers up to the right standard, and those cashiers probably wouldn't get enough practice to be more than a liability, and as such they generally aren't. "Common sense" would also state that the banks should hire other cashiers, but that would leave the branches over-staffed for most of the time of each day for most of the year, so that's generally not done either.

Banks generally want to try and make it easy for their customers to see their staff, but it's never easy to get the balance right.

paid4it

well i went in to barclays one saturday in march and was told that i needed an apointment but the nice lady was very helpful and sat me down in the corner till i filled in the application for a monthly saver, ten minutes later eventho they were busy she came back took the forms and told me they would open the account for me when they got time on monday morning,got the phone call monday afternoon to say it was open, simple......... Then had cause to go to BOS to open a cash isa for this year and was told i needed an apointment for one hour even though i was the only customer in the branch with three tellers they would not help needless to say they did not get my money, just shows you though one busy one not ( then again maybe the lady at barclays fancied me:rotfl:)

cvd

Another reason, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is that the FSA now insist that bank branches justify the choice of savings product sold to a customer to prove that it is appropriate. That can't be done without the right questions being asked to establish need.

Of course if that were really true they would usually be advising prospective customers to take their money to a rival organisation.
Indeed, customers should NEVER, in my opinion, accept the opinion of these tied representatives. They should NEVER be trusted.

It is possible to shunt large amounts of money about online without any question. But if you walk into a branch, then you need to answer loads of questions such as when your house insurance expires even if you are just funding a new savings account with money from a different savings account at the same organisation.

Aegis

paid4it wrote: »

well i went in to barclays one saturday in march and was told that i needed an apointment but the nice lady was very helpful and sat me down in the corner till i filled in the application for a monthly saver, ten minutes later eventho they were busy she came back took the forms and told me they would open the account for me when they got time on monday morning,got the phone call monday afternoon to say it was open, simple......... Then had cause to go to BOS to open a cash isa for this year and was told i needed an apointment for one hour even though i was the only customer in the branch with three tellers they would not help needless to say they did not get my money, just shows you though one busy one not ( then again maybe the lady at barclays fancied me:rotfl:)

You'll find that tellers are generally not trained to open accounts. Cashiering and account opening seem to be treated as two separate disciplines within banking at the moment, and for good reason if you look at costs of teaching and maintaining the necessary skills for each role. As such, it's not that they were ignoring you because you didn't have an appointment, it's probably more that they genuinely couldn't help you out because of the regulations that they have to adhere to.

I'm not necessarily stating that this is the most efficient process, just letting you know why it shouldn't be taken as a personal slight or anything.

jack_spratt_2

I cannot believe how naive some of the posters comments are!! yes money laundering is a very good excuse but if any bank employees are truthful its all about sales and sales opportunities .

What has home or car insurance got to do with saving or investment products !! most of the time the people who are opening the accounts for the banks and building societies are not authorised to give financial advice and you would then be passed onto there financial advisor !! If a teller was conducting the account opening it would not be possible to maximise the sales potential of the new customer

As another poster has pointed out quite correctly that you do not receive any advice to open on-line accounts and can move money around at will within certain limitations !! so the idea of giving best advice is a bit of a red herring as that scenario is more suited to investment products than savings accounts

Please do not take this as a attack on other posters its just my opinion