Halifax computer system after last weekend changes

martynghjones

Has anyone else noticed that the 'names' have disappeared from their standing orders ? i used to have friendly names on my standing orders but the latest 'upgrade' has wiped them all out !! Also I can no longer create any standing orders on my web saver accounts, i can see existing ones but i cant create new ones. What a wonderful upgrade this has been.

bobblebob

Ive got 2 recipients set up that i dunno who they're because they're listed as account number and not by name

EarthBoy

lise61 wrote: »

Yeah Nationwide does the same ok so they're a building society but seems to be the general rule of thumb. Not sure bout credits being shown on a Saturday if not due to Monday - don't really see how that would work!!

Nationwide doesn't do the same at all. Debits and credits which are due on the Monday do not show on accounts until the Monday. They do not show on Saturday or Sunday.

glider3560

So if I've got a direct debit due on Monday and it isn't showing on my Halifax account now, this means it isn't being paid on Monday?

steve055

Have just been on phone to Halifax as system is up and running again as far as I can see. However recipients are appearing as numbers - names have disappeared! Asked for customer services to rectify and add names back on - can't do it! They said I will have to cancel the ones appearing as numbers and find out myself which account belongs to which recipient. This is just appalling and a load of hassle. Why are national press or Martin Lewis not shouting this from the rooftops? I cannot believe the ineptness of Lloyds and HBOS

System

martynghjones wrote: »

Has anyone else noticed that the 'names' have disappeared from their standing orders ? i used to have friendly names on my standing orders but the latest 'upgrade' has wiped them all out !! Also I can no longer create any standing orders on my web saver accounts, i can see existing ones but i cant create new ones. What a wonderful upgrade this has been.

When a bank decides to merge two computer systems, in this case one from HBOS which originally was from two other banks, Halifax and Bank Of Scotland, and the other system is from Lloyds, the bank usually employs a computer software company or internal department to carry out the migration of all the data.

Since the real live data contains private and sensative information, the bank usually provide the software guys with a batch of example data for them to use during the software development process. If this example data only included a few records where for example, the "Names" were not shown for Standing Order type transactions, then the software developers would not have known that they needed to migrate the "Name" to the new computer system. During software testing, the bank staff should have identified that this data was missing from the new system, but it seems in this case, the testing was not up to a good enough standard and it looks like the Transaction Id Number has been used to populate the "Name" field.

It would be possible to correct this error, but it would depend on the bank asking the software developers to create another bit of software code to copy the "Name" data from the old database system to correct the new system. The bank may be unwilling to do this due to the additional risk involved, the new software could make the situation worse than it already is. The alternative is for the bank to ask customers to correct their own data, by deleting and re-creating these standing orders (etc.) Not a good situation however you look at it.

pinkdalek

steve055 wrote: »

Why are national press or Martin Lewis not shouting this from the rooftops? I cannot believe the ineptness of Lloyds and HBOS

Probably because there are much more IMPORTANT things happening in the world right now which are more significant than a one man crusade against a system change.

1 Events In Libya & Middle East
2 Euro crisis
3 East African Famine
4 Japan Earthquake and how the country is managing
5 10 yrs on since 9/11

Puts it into perspective doesn't it?

10_66

steve055 wrote: »

...However recipients are appearing as numbers - names have disappeared! Asked for customer services to rectify and add names back on - can't do it!...

What I can't understand is why this hasn't happened to all account holders. Thankfully, all details for payments to be made are showing correctly for me, in this order: recipient (shown on my online page as a name), sort code, account number and reference. I usually put the person's name in the reference if it's to pay a person (of course if it was to pay, say, a Credit Card company, then the reference would require the card account number to be shown instead, but the Card Company's name would then be shown in the recipient details instead).

..........

MoneySaverLog

BAA1 wrote: »

When a bank decides to merge two computer systems, in this case one from HBOS which originally was from two other banks, Halifax and Bank Of Scotland, and the other system is from Lloyds, the bank usually employs a computer software company or internal department to carry out the migration of all the data.

Since the real live data contains private and sensative information, the bank usually provide the software guys with a batch of example data for them to use during the software development process. If this example data only included a few records where for example, the "Names" were not shown for Standing Order type transactions, then the software developers would not have known that they needed to migrate the "Name" to the new computer system. During software testing, the bank staff should have identified that this data was missing from the new system, but it seems in this case, the testing was not up to a good enough standard and it looks like the Transaction Id Number has been used to populate the "Name" field.

It would be possible to correct this error, but it would depend on the bank asking the software developers to create another bit of software code to copy the "Name" data from the old database system to correct the new system. The bank may be unwilling to do this due to the additional risk involved, the new software could make the situation worse than it already is. The alternative is for the bank to ask customers to correct their own data, by deleting and re-creating these standing orders (etc.) Not a good situation however you look at it.

Something as big as this, should have gone through a formal Change Control process to mitigate any risk of losing customer data. It would appear, with hindsight, that this did not happen.

It is unacceptable to blame the test data now. The lack of test data at the time should have been highlighted by whoever was responsible for system and user testing. The buck must stop there.

It is more likely that it was rushed in for some reason by The Halifax.

pinkdalek

MoneySaverLog wrote: »

It is more likely that it was rushed in for some reason by The Halifax.

Yep to stop the EU & Government from breaking up LBG!

But on the other side of the coin it was the previous government that allowed the Lloyds/HBOS merger and rushed it through and it is now the same government which is telling the bailed out banks to cut costs and save money to help pay back what it owes. Therefore one business running on one system is much more cost effective than three big banks running on different computer packages costing the company more money to maintain.

I don't think LBG had a lot of choice, they could either keep things the same (costing too much money), invest in a new all singing all dancing system (taking longer, costing more money) or use the best of what they have now and see which one works best. Once it is all in place then look at updating it and bringing back and introducing the best of all the previous packages they had.