Changing bank atfer 40 years where to go?

Don80

Heng_Leng wrote: »

You'll notice a pattern - where it's not viable for one bank, it's usually not viable for them all in smaller /suburban locations.

Very true - so much for RBS's "last bank in town" promise, that went out the window ages ago.

Heng_Leng wrote: »

I'd keep your RBS open and open an alternative as you'll not get a switching bonus anyway. Keep RBS as a spare and backup account.

My thinking was the hassle of manually contacting everyone you have a direct debit/standing order with and changing them all. I think you can do a partial switch option which allows you to move direct debits and standing orders, but not close the account. I think that still leaves you a lot to do though?

Heng_Leng wrote: »

Think of it this way - if all the branches go, who would you choose?

First Direct? :rotfl:

Though these days, internet and mobile banking is so good that a branch is no longer a necessity. I go into a branch maybe once or twice a year. I like the option but in practice rarely use it.

agrinnall

Don80 wrote: »

Though these days, internet and mobile banking is so good that a branch is no longer a necessity.

Except in the OP's position where there is a need to pay in cash, not easily done online!

Don80

agrinnall wrote: »

Except in the OP's position where there is a need to pay in cash, not easily done online!

Yeah, I meant generally, not in this specific case! Obviously people whose income comes in as cash do need to be able to deposit cash easily. Hence my earlier detailed "easy to switch" to the Bank of Scotland post

System

Don80 wrote: »

Yeah, I meant generally, not in this specific case! Obviously people whose income comes in as cash do need to be able to deposit cash easily. Hence my earlier detailed "easy to switch" to the Bank of Scotland post

A number of banks have arrangements with the Post Office that allow cash deposits with card (I would avoid those that use pay-in slips) as these will be instantly credited to the account.

HSBC, Clydesdale and Co-op come to mind.

Not as good as an actual branch but Post Office coverage is still relatively good.

bigadaj

I'm surprised that the government hasn't actually provided some political pressure for at lest one bank to be maintained, particularly in rural areas and small towns.

As well as directly bailing out rbs and lloyds the government provided a tacit guarantee that kept all banks afloat during the gfc.

If nothing else it would be a positive bit of PR for both politicians and the financial industry, no one can say either party isn't in need o f a bit of that.

polymaff

bigadaj wrote: »

I'm surprised that the government hasn't actually provided some political pressure for at lest one bank to be maintained, particularly in rural areas and small towns.
...
If nothing else it would be a positive bit of PR for both politicians and the financial industry, no one can say either party isn't in need o f a bit of that.

Well, governments do all sorts of daft things, so you might be right, but why try to buck a trend? Branches are now where customers go to pay in cash or to receive therapy. Wise banks are coming to arrangements with others to address the former - and are only too keen to get out of the latter.

takman

bigadaj wrote: »

I'm surprised that the government hasn't actually provided some political pressure for at lest one bank to be maintained, particularly in rural areas and small towns.

As well as directly bailing out rbs and lloyds the government provided a tacit guarantee that kept all banks afloat during the gfc.

If nothing else it would be a positive bit of PR for both politicians and the financial industry, no one can say either party isn't in need o f a bit of that.

The only reason that bank branches are needed is to pay in cash and withdraw coins (mainly for businesses).

So they should replace cash machines with ones that can accept the paying in of cash and coins and also the withdrawal of coins.

Zanderman

lrlrip wrote: »

Yes we do need branch access. DH is a self employed taxi driver so mainly paid in cash.
I have just recently started online banking.
We do have a local Post Office but for how long who knows!!

I'd assume every bank is likely to go, and wouldn't therefore choose one of those remaining as it too might be gone in a year or two.

Post Offices close too - but have many more functions and many more users and so tend to outlast the banks.

So I'd advise just finding, or staying with, a bank that allows you to pay at the PO, as the PO is likely (not guaranteed of course!) to outlast all the banks. And there are likely to be more POs in other nearby towns too.

You could even open a Post Office Current Account: http://www.postoffice.co.uk/current-accounts

agrinnall

takman wrote: »

The only reason that bank branches are needed is to pay in cash and withdraw coins (mainly for businesses).

So they should replace cash machines with ones that can accept the paying in of cash and coins and also the withdrawal of coins.

I think eventually the answer will have to be taking card and phone payments and giving up cash altogether - it may still be a few years away but it's going to happen.

takman

agrinnall wrote: »

I think eventually the answer will have to be taking card and phone payments and giving up cash altogether - it may still be a few years away but it's going to happen.

Yes i agree with that but there will be some very heavy resistance to removing cash. Even when they tried to remove the obsolete cheque system the public resistance made them reconsider doing it.