NatWest - who's the best alternative?

plumber2009

I have banked with all the following:-

Recommended banks :-

1.First Direct (5* customer service, Must use HSBC branches/have good credit history.)
2.HSBC (widely accessible and good customer service)
3.Barclays (Good all round service except for telephone banking)
4.Lloyds TSB (Good all round service. Avoid if you have a poor credit history!)

Avoid the following like the plague.

1.Halifax (terrible service)
2. NatWest (Terrible service, rude staff,charge you late fees even when you have cash in your account, constantly blocking transactions)
3.RBS (same as NatWest)
4.Santander (atrocious customer service and telephone banking is even worse)

innovate

If I were a Natwest/RBS/Ulster customer affected by this recent mess, I would definitely consider my options - - but not because of the IT issues. These exist with all banks, and RBS will probably be safer after this experience than others. The decision for me would be based on where I get best value for money.

I for one wouldn't begin to even consider FD/HSBC/Barclays/Natwest/RBS for my current account because they pay no interest whatsoever for current accounts. I don't subscribe to the "FD has excellent CS" argument, either, because I need CS once in a blue moon. The rest I do online, with cards, at ATMs etc.

Lloyds is a lot better value, with their Vantage, but Santander 123 is the account that suits me best for everyday use because not only does it pay interest, I also get cashback. And no, I have not had any bad experience with them.

Having said all this, I do also have accounts with FD and HSBC - - but purely because I want to use their Regular Saver accounts. Oh, and a Halifax one because they pay me a fiver every month. And a Nationwide one because it is needed for their 4.25% ISA (no longer offered to new customers).

GustyGardenGalaxy

Thanks for the advice - I'll look into the recommended ones.

Debt_Free_Chick

AIUI - HSBC have invested and upgraded their IT systems. I don't know that they're "state of the art" but apparently, the IT pros consider them to be more up to date than the other banks. I don't know this personally, but there's a thread on The Register (IT site) about the RBS/NW issue and this is what is being said there.

That would put HSBC - and FD? - slightly ahead of the game for me.

I've applied to FD today. I'm an RBS customer and, although not affected by the current fiasco, my account is also being migrated to Santander so the two things together have me calling it a day after 23 years (originally with Williams & Glynns).

pmduk

Haven't HSBC had similar (although shorter-lived) problems on 2 occasions in the last year?

buglawton

nice article in the Reg:

RBS IT cockup: This sort of thing can destroy a bank, normally
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/banking_fail_rbs_natwest/

GustyGardenGalaxy

Thanks for the link to the article, most interesting.

InsideInsurance

Wish people would learn the difference between offshoring and outsourcing.

Unless things have changed in last few years then RBS does have a very large offshore IT team but they are all RBS employees that just happen to live/ work in India. Certainly when I worked for them they didn't outsource any of their core IT work at all.

There are no banks that would be immune to this type of error. The problem is your damned if you do and your damned if you dont. If you have old systems (like most banks) then they are a terrible tangle of strings, very difficult to modernise and far too convoluted for even a small group of people to know how the whole thing works and interlinks fully. These systems tend to work well when you leave them alone (though you can find it has a "quirk" thats been running for years, or even decades) but trying to change them is high risk.

On the other hand you could have a bank with a cutting edge (aka bleeding edge) technology (dont know any). These lack the level of real life testing that the 20+ year old banking systems have and so are more prone to Business As Usual issues. Arguably they are also less resilient as they are designed to be fast, modular, realtime, full of MI & BI, potentially cloud computing, virtualisation with the modern principles of LEAN & 6 Sigma built in etc where as the older systems are old workhorses that just keep on trudging forward. New systems are however easier for changes to be coded for and in theory easier to correct errors when they happen.

Mistakes will happen with every firm, the true judge is more how they deal with the mistake rather than if they ever make one.

GooliesOfFire

I had accounts in Alliance&Leicester/Santander, Halifax, LloydsTSB, Barclays, Intelligent Finance, RBS. I don't miss any of them to be honest.

I'm only with Nationwide BS and Norwich&Peterborough BS (aka Yorkshire BS) now. Banks repel me haha

kitface

May I point out that just because a bank has had a bad rep in the past, it doesn't mean that it can't change eg Santander has just been voted Most Improved Bank for customer service and has changed its approach massively in this respect. Plus there will always be someone who has had a problem with every bank at some time or another. Totally have to agree with Inside Insurer above - its how a mistake is dealt with that should matter.

Hands up - who here is 100% perfect all of the time and has never made a single mistake, ever?

Multiply by number of bank employees in the UK.

There we go... lots of mistakes then!