We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Why Are Banks Sometimes Obstructive?
Comments
-
Psyduck1980 wrote: »Surprised to see quite a few high street bank apologists on here!
I think the problem is that the traditional high street banks are struggling to keep up with a). improvements in technology; and b). more savvy customers.
I recently switched to NatWest in order to take advantage of the £125 switching incentive. I switched a reasonable amount of money across and I had no intention of keeping it in there but I couldn't transfer it out for a couple of weeks because:
1. In order to make transfers you need to have a card reader (give me strength). However, these are not automatically issued when you register and they take up to 10 working days to arrive once requested (!!!!!!).
2. I couldn't make a transfer using telephone banking because there wasn't enough transactions on my account to verify my identity.
3. I couldn't use the mobile banking app for 72 hours after registering due to some bizarre "cooling off period". Even when this period elapsed I could only transfer £250 per day.
The advice I received from them during this period was "go into a branch".
I would consider this very obstructive.
All the examples you quote are NatWest's procedures for security - which may or may not be them 'not keeping up' - but they're not 'obstructive'. They are trying to keep your money secure. Which you should be pleased about.
Obstructive implies deliberate delays. These are considered delays. You don't have to agree with them, as others have said, but they're not 'obstructive'.
And, btw, I'm not a " high street bank apologist" - far from it! But what you're grumbling about is not what you say it is.0 -
I agree with the sentiment. You are seeing your inconvenience in opening a joint account in the way you want, but apparently not seeing the need to protect other people from having accounts opened without their consent. In that regard it might be that Lloyds have got it right in terms of having a secure process and other banks are deficient.anotheruser wrote: »It seems there are more and more me-centered comments these days. Just because YOU can't see the problem from someone else's point of view, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Wouldn't have been a good idea to find out about withdrawal arrangements before depositing a large amount of money in a new account? I'm not blaming you here, but just making the point that you are criticising NatWest for not operating in the way you expected, but apparently without doing your research first.Psyduck1980 wrote: »I recently switched to NatWest in order to take advantage of the £125 switching incentive. I switched a reasonable amount of money across and I had no intention of keeping it in there but I couldn't transfer it out for a couple of weeks because:
1. In order to make transfers you need to have a card reader (give me strength).....
It's not clear why it took a couple of weeks for you to get your money back out - the card reader facility should have been activated around 48 hours after asking for one. Unless you didn't have a reader to start with the maximum delay should only have been a couple of days.
It might be a valid point to say NatWest should send card readers out automatically when anyone opens an account, but then some people might not want one. Returning to anotheruser's sentiment, one person's reason to complain might be someone elses customer satisfaction.
Personally I really like the cardreaders, if only more banks used them as a security option I'd be very happy.
"In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
Wouldn't have been a good idea to find out about withdrawal arrangements before depositing a large amount of money in a new account? I'm not blaming you here, but just making the point that you are criticising NatWest for not operating in the way you expected, but apparently without doing your research first.
NatWest do not make it very clear at all that you need a card reader. Other banks do, so I would have more sympathy with this point if it were a different bank that we were talking about.It's not clear why it took a couple of weeks for you to get your money back out - the card reader facility should have been activated around 48 hours after asking for one. Unless you didn't have a reader to start with the maximum delay should only have been a couple of days.
Actually, they did say that they had to order one. They were opening a new account with NatWest so they would have been unlikely to have a card reader. Delivery of the readers takes up to 10 days (and many have reported that they often do take easily this long to arrive).It might be a valid point to say NatWest should send card readers out automatically when anyone opens an account, but then some people might not want one.
Why wouldn't they want one? They are necessary for online banking (other than checking your balance). If somebody didn't want to use online banking then they wouldn't have to make use of the card reader.
Even worse than not automatically sending them out, however, is not telling customers that they are needed and how to go about ordering one. Instead, they let customers discover this by accident and then leave them to search around in the various menus to find out how to order one. I'm not going to get into the semantic argument about the word "obstructive", but it is poor customer service.0 -
God give me strength!Psyduck1980 wrote: »Surprised to see quite a few high street bank apologists on here!
I recently switched to NatWest in order to take advantage of the £125 switching incentive. I switched a reasonable amount of money across and I had no intention of keeping it in there.
I would consider this very obstructive.
NatWest are giving you £125 for doing absolutely nothing, not even keeping any money in your account.
And all you can do is complain that they are being very obstructive.0 -
Is this a repeat of the NatWest thread?0
-
Ah ha, but it's about the discussion of why certain banks are okay with this or that, yet others aren't. Like Natwest above.<snip>
Another good one is HSBC. I registered for their mobile app ages ago. However they used the same company as Natwest, so when I swapped to them, I had to call and get them to "release" my phone from the HSBC account before I could register with Natwest. Probably fixed now, but hassle at the time.
Don't get me wrong, I understand banks are all different businesses, but if I ran a bank, I'd want to make it as easy as possible for customers.
I should think most people who have fallen into the same are as me either looked elsewhere or found time to go into the branch. My joiner can't do either as they work early and finish late.
Huh?All the examples you quote are NatWest's procedures for security - which may or may not be them 'not keeping up' - but they're not 'obstructive'. They are trying to keep your money secure. Which you should be pleased about.
Obstructive implies deliberate delays. These are considered delays. You don't have to agree with them, as others have said, but they're not 'obstructive'.
They call it security, but it isn't really.
I'm certain Santander allow you to transfer more than £250 a day using the mobile app. So are you saying Santander's security isn't as good as Natwest? Or are Natwest just being difficult for the sake of restricting use?
Limiting contactless to £30 is security but I've spoken to plenty of people who think that should be upped. But the banks clearly don't care that much - Apple/Google Pay can be used for higher amounts than the £30.
And Lloyds are deliberately delaying the switching of a joint account to a joint Club Lloyds account unless you jump through their hoops. It's nothing to do with security - their system is broken (see below).
But it isn't secure - that's the whole point.I agree with the sentiment. You are seeing your inconvenience in opening a joint account in the way you want, but apparently not seeing the need to protect other people from having accounts opened without their consent. In that regard it might be that Lloyds have got it right in terms of having a secure process and other banks are deficient.
Plenty of other banks allow the opening of a joint account online. Lloyds is the only one so far that doesn't allow it at the moment (see below).
It's not like I can type some names in and !!!!!! - I have a joint account in two peoples names. I'm sure before I had to use passport numbers, driving licences or other details to prove the ID of the two people.
And/or being sent forms to sign, which I then had to take in with ID that they photocopied.
Why isn't that secure?
Do the bank physically need to see two people?
What happens if the other account holder isn't really the person they claim to be? And claim they have no photo ID? Will the bank just accept them, if they can say the right information to pass any credit checks?
But I could open a single account with fake details and they'd be fine with that... because it's just a single person. Why is joint such a bother?
Having to go in is no more secure than online.
Whether it was a lie or not, Lloyds have just told me that they used to allow switching from joint to joint online but something messed up in their system and caused a lot of issues so they stopped it... for now.
Perhaps this is another reason there haven't been complaints... certainly if it's a recent problem.
So it turns out, if this is true, that Lloyds is just as insecure as the rest.
Perhaps it's just the expectation that has disappointed me.
I expect to be able to open a joint account online these days. Just like I'd suggest the majority of people expect electric windows when buying a brand new car these days (no matter what model!).
It just seems very exclusive.
Banks that allow joint opening online: Natwest | Santander | HSBC | Barclays0 -
So why do you expect them all to be the same? Obviously they all have to comply with FCA regulations and so on but each takes their own view about a myriad of different aspects of the products they sell, hence some insist on card readers, some open branches on Saturdays, some send info by post, some use SMS-based authentication, some have higher transaction limits than others, some have more stringent ID controls than others, some target higher earners, etc, etc....anotheruser wrote: »Ah ha, but it's about the discussion of why certain banks are okay with this or that, yet others aren't. Like Natwest above.
<snip>
Don't get me wrong, I understand banks are all different businesses
In your OP, you said (of Lloyds) "I'm just not sure I understand it and nobody from the bank wants to explain why its like that" - do you probe other banks for explanations and justifications of their policies?
Do you really think senior bank executives sit there thinking 'how can we make this awkward for our customers'?!anotheruser wrote: »if I ran a bank, I'd want to make it as easy as possible for customers.
I can understand why long working hours hinder getting to a branch but what stops them from looking elsewhere?anotheruser wrote: »I should think most people who have fallen into the same are as me either looked elsewhere or found time to go into the branch. My joiner can't do either as they work early and finish late.
How many of those people were liable for fraudulent losses?anotheruser wrote: »Limiting contactless to £30 is security but I've spoken to plenty of people who think that should be upped.0 -
Why isn't it secure? Asking people to attend in person with photo ID is surely the 'gold standard' when it comes to ID verification?anotheruser wrote: »But it isn't secure - that's the whole point.
Plenty of other banks allow the opening of a joint account online. Lloyds is the only one so far that doesn't allow it at the moment (see below).
Because the person you are adding to the account might not be aware of what you are doing. Take for example a carer - they would have access to the kind of documents you refer to. They could set up an account in their own name, then add their client to make it a joint account. Having established a joint banking facility there are all kinds of things that could be done to the client's detriment.anotheruser wrote: »It's not like I can type some names in and !!!!!! - I have a joint account in two peoples names. I'm sure before I had to use passport numbers, driving licences or other details to prove the ID of the two people.
And/or being sent forms to sign, which I then had to take in with ID that they photocopied.
Why isn't that secure?
Some form of face-to-face contact with the bank would ensure that both parties were consenting to a joint banking arrangement.
As above, I think it would be preferable for the bank to see both people, because joint accounts come with very specific obligations and risks. Ultimately it may be the case that bank staff have a 'feeling' that something isn't right if one party doesn't appear to be clear about what they are agreeing to.anotheruser wrote: »Do the bank physically need to see two people?
What happens if the other account holder isn't really the person they claim to be? And claim they have no photo ID? Will the bank just accept them, if they can say the right information to pass any credit checks?
For all the reasons given above, I think it is more secure requiring applicants to go into a branch. A possible alternative for the technologically capable (or bedridden) might be the use of a video call or similar.anotheruser wrote: »Having to go in is no more secure than online.
Switching joint to joint means the checks on ID and agreement to holding a joint account should already have taken place. But it does sound like other banks have a more relaxed approach on this than perhaps they should have.anotheruser wrote: »Whether it was a lie or not, Lloyds have just told me that they used to allow switching from joint to joint online but something messed up in their system and caused a lot of issues so they stopped it... for now.
Perhaps this is another reason there haven't been complaints... certainly if it's a recent problem.
So it turns out, if this is true, that Lloyds is just as insecure as the rest."In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
It doesn't matter which bank we are talking about - the onus is on the customer to read the T&C's and fully satisfy themselves the account is suitable for their needs having regard to the way in which they plan to operate the account. Understanding the requirements for paying out/withdrawing money from the account is surely one of the most important things a customer has to consider when it comes to current accounts?ValiantSon wrote: »NatWest do not make it very clear at all that you need a card reader. Other banks do, so I would have more sympathy with this point if it were a different bank that we were talking about.
The card reader is generic amongst several banks, the chances are that serial switchers will have at least one reader in a draw somewhere, or be aware that different banks have different approaches to authorising transactions and therefore have checked NatWest's requirements in advance. NatWest could do more to publicise the need for a card reader, but the need for one was made clear in this forum well before anyone would have been able to apply for an account and complete their switch.ValiantSon wrote: »Actually, they did say that they had to order one. They were opening a new account with NatWest so they would have been unlikely to have a card reader. Delivery of the readers takes up to 10 days (and many have reported that they often do take easily this long to arrive).
The card reader is needed when setting up a new payee, and for confirming some transactions. But it is also possible to get the payee set up by phone. Therefore it would be possible for some people to make limited online transactions from their NatWest account without a card reader, but this would only be feasible for a minority of customers. But nevertheless, having a card reader should be optional.ValiantSon wrote: »Why wouldn't they want one? They are necessary for online banking (other than checking your balance). If somebody didn't want to use online banking then they wouldn't have to make use of the card reader.
You'll get no argument from me that NatWest could be more proactive about informing customers that a card reader is required to make full use of online banking, but by any definition of the word, that cannot be said to be "obstructive".ValiantSon wrote: »Even worse than not automatically sending them out, however, is not telling customers that they are needed and how to go about ordering one. Instead, they let customers discover this by accident and then leave them to search around in the various menus to find out how to order one. I'm not going to get into the semantic argument about the word "obstructive", but it is poor customer service."In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
Thank you ValiantSon; it would appear you have experienced similar issues with NatWest.ValiantSon wrote: »NatWest do not make it very clear at all that you need a card reader. Other banks do, so I would have more sympathy with this point if it were a different bank that we were talking about.
Actually, they did say that they had to order one. They were opening a new account with NatWest so they would have been unlikely to have a card reader. Delivery of the readers takes up to 10 days (and many have reported that they often do take easily this long to arrive).
Why wouldn't they want one? They are necessary for online banking (other than checking your balance). If somebody didn't want to use online banking then they wouldn't have to make use of the card reader.
Even worse than not automatically sending them out, however, is not telling customers that they are needed and how to go about ordering one. Instead, they let customers discover this by accident and then leave them to search around in the various menus to find out how to order one. I'm not going to get into the semantic argument about the word "obstructive", but it is poor customer service.
Hahahahaha! Do you think they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts!?God give me strength!
NatWest are giving you £125 for doing absolutely nothing, not even keeping any money in your account.
And all you can do is complain that they are being very obstructive.
Bingo. I think it's common practice for customer support staff to hide behind the "its for security reasons" explanation although, to be fair, it's not their fault.anotheruser wrote: »They call it security, but it isn't really.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards