MSE News: NatWest customers in lurch after meltdown

lolavix

:rotfl:

MoneySaverLog wrote: »

Or if not spare cash a overdraft facility in place that will cover a months worth of essential payments if something like this was to happen which is available in your back up bank.

If this has highlighted anything it is the need to have more than one account in different banking groups for such disasters.

So true. Not just if anything like this happens though, its always been recommended that people keep some money aside in saw of losing their job or being sick etc, which I know is hard for many, but it's possible to aim towards something

majjie

lolavix wrote: »

I've said similar on the other topic and apparently my attitude is absolutely disgusting!

I know things are hard for many people, but do they honestly eat every morsel of food in the house and wait until the car is runnin on fumes before topping up? Seems a crazy way to live IMO - would be easy enough to save 50p a week or something, or keep some change in the house incase a bank card stops working.

I don't know whether you've ever been short of money over a long period? It's not that your attitude is disgusting - it's just totally unrealistic.

There are so many things you have to do without when you don't have enough income. So many things that you need that don't get replaced or repaired.

When I was struggling - if I had managed to save up a couple of hundred pounds - I would have used it to repair the vacuum cleaner (instead of having to clean the floor with the upholstery nozzle) or bought a new mower (instead of using the one with the broken handle) ... or repaired or replaced any number of things that weren't working properly.

I certainly wouldn't have left it in a bank, just in case my other bank had a technical problem!!

JuicyJesus

bobblebob wrote: »

Been listening to people saying they havent got money now for food, bills etc on the news. Obviously the bank messed up in a big way, but are customers to blame a little too?

Everyone knows technology isnt perfect and backup systems are in place when things go wrong, but should customers have their own backup system? Ie another bank account with a different bank incase stuff like this happens?

At the same time, they provide a service, and it is reasonable to expect them to provide that service to a competent standard. They are not doing so. So far on this thread we have seen examples of incompetence from RBS' own IT staff being the root cause of the issue, as well as confusing and incoherent information being given to front-line staff, leading to a mishmash of different policies and procedures being in operation, and in many cases pretty bad service being provided to customers (although staff are, understandably, under pressure - I can imagine a lot of RBS Group frontline staff's weekends have just gone up the shoot due to a problem they had nothing to do with.)

If I put my money in an institution, and have my wages mandated to that institution, then at the very least I would expect them to do this competently. If they don't then it's not my fault if they don't.

RBS' reputation is going to take a BIG hit on this. The fact that they decided to upgrade a critical piece of payment infrastructure on a major processing day and then seemingly did not have a valid regression plan in place reflects extremely poorly on them (although I am not an expert, and no doubt I am being somewhat short-sighted here.)

majjie

MoneySaverLog wrote: »

Or if not spare cash a overdraft facility in place that will cover a months worth of essential payments if something like this was to happen which is available in your back up bank.

If this has highlighted anything it is the need to have more than one account in different banking groups for such disasters.

An overdraft facility!! :rotfl:

Have you tried getting one of those when you've been struggling to pay your bills? I think not.

Toe-Jam

If you read this thread from start to finish, it is a brilliant "micro" example of how the Government are telling people who are struggling to make ends meet how they should be spending and saving their money, without any realistic ideal at all about how it can be achieved.

Bottom line, If there is no money to save, be it for unforeseeable technical issues, new lawnmowers or whatever else. It just can't be done.

"you can't take feathers off a frog" as the saying goes.

I would say the onus is on the RBS Group in this case, sure technical issues arise, no IT system is perfect. But to have all your eggs in the one basket just save some money, and then drop it just to is negligent in my eyes.

lolavix

majjie wrote: »

I don't know whether you've ever been short of money over a long period? It's not that your attitude is disgusting - it's just totally unrealistic.

There are so many things you have to do without when you don't have enough income. So many things that you need that don't get replaced or repaired.

When I was struggling - if I had managed to save up a couple of hundred pounds - I would have used it to repair the vacuum cleaner (instead of having to clean the floor with the upholstery nozzle) or bought a new mower (instead of using the one with the broken handle) ... or repaired or replaced any number of things that weren't working properly.

I certainly wouldn't have left it in a bank, just in case my other bank had a technical problem!!

So buying a new mower due to a broken handle would be more important than setting some money aside incase you couldn't work? And I'm not talking fortunes either!

I just seem to have different priorities to others on here, I don't earn a lot of money but I try and put aside what I can incase sometime happened that I wasn't expecting. But that's the way I was brought up by my grandparents - plus I have the worst luck around.

ALIBOBSY

dazza12 wrote: »

Not really sure why your apologising. Possibly an attempt to patronise? I bet you think I'm just some jumped up support monkey trying to impress. Sorry, you've got me wrong.

Your retort seems to imply that I was saying that somebody made an unplanned change off of their own back. Sorry, I don't recall me saying that at all. Natwest extensively test any change that needs to be made, on test environments with copies of live data. Various scenarios are tested and only when it's been signed off will any change be made to a live system.

I'm fully conversant with change control processes thank you. Many types of different processes, in many different sectors. It's part of my current job, and was when I worked in a Gov agency, an aerospace company and prior to that several assignments in the financial sector. You won't believe me, but I'd be happy to send you my CV along with client testimonials and copies of the relevant certifications.

For 'friends', read 'fellow IT contractors'. I didn't originally feel it was relevant to make the distinction, but as you're trolling and I'm biting, hopefully it helps you distinguish me from the guy who has a mate who also has a mate who knows someone who's married to a cashier.

The company I currently work for write software for the health sector. Absolutely everything we do has to go through a change control process. In this, customer management has to approve every change, including running simulations on test systems with samples of real data. Only after an extensive test does this then get signed off by both customer managment and our management and the upgrade performed with a working backup system in place in case all does go wrong.

Despite all of this, in the real world things go wrong. In many cases a factor that wasn't considered, whether user generated or down to a data issue. Test environments don't always reflect the real world. Anybody can make a mistake, miss a step on an install script or misread a command line. Whenever a process involves human interaction, anything can go wrong. Despite the 'perfect' system you describe.

In this case, an update was ran on a live system. It had been tested, but should have been temporarily decommissioned (services stopped etc) prior to this. This wasn't picked up on immediately, and transactions continued to process through an effectively broken system. This then corrupted live data. It took until earlier today to fully roll back the changes and recover the data that had been damaged, and then 'play' the transactions from the point of failure.

I apologise to everyone else - this isn't a techy forum and I'm sorry for dragging it down. Tried to keep it in non-techy speak but there's always one who has to tell you publicly how wrong you are.

OH also works in IT and has worked for massive and sometimes international companies and has often caught stuff just before things were implemented and had to detangle stuff afterwards lol. He has had to argue with managers who want updates pushed through even before things have been fully checked and tested. He has heard on the grapevine that the case here was management were pushing for the update along side some big new advertising campaign to start this week?

I am begining to think this is a ploy to make us glad they are pushing us off top santander rofl.

Hope everyone who is having issues get things sorted ASAP.

Ali x

MoneySaverLog

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

He has heard on the grapevine that the case here was management were pushing for the update along side some big new advertising campaign to start this week?

If so I really hope they have the sense to hold back on any new big advertising campaign cause they are just going to look stupid. Time will heal, but to go full on with a campaign now will just look silly.

majjie

lolavix wrote: »

So buying a new mower due to a broken handle would be more important than setting some money aside incase you couldn't work? And I'm not talking fortunes either!

I just seem to have different priorities to others on here, I don't earn a lot of money but I try and put aside what I can incase sometime happened that I wasn't expecting. But that's the way I was brought up by my grandparents - plus I have the worst luck around.

If you'd ever tried mowing a lawn with a mower with no long handle - you wouldn't be asking that! And it's a matter of pride not to have a lawn that's 12 inches high!

Putting aside money in case you can't work isn't a realistic option for some people. In my case, the money I put aside when I had a good regular income, has long gone.

I'm in the relatively lucky position of having built up a business which is now supporting me (touch wood!) ... but I had to spend every penny I owned (and more) to get into this position.

If you have a regular income and it's possible to live reasonably within that income, then by all means put some by for emergencies. Just don't assume that everyone else is in the same fortunate position!

Toe-Jam

Maybe they are just getting us used to the level of service we can expect when transferred to Santander, so its not such a shock to the system.

We'll be getting other peoples statements next month, followed by the wrong or no interest on our ISA's after that.