MSE News: TSB customers STILL unable to use online banking after weekend upgrade

pochisoldi

Westie983 wrote: »

I have had no lasting damage on my credit file as I made adhoc payments to cover my DD failing, during the outage.

TSB haven't been reporting credit card to credit reference agencies since the fiasco started.
(Last update for TSB on my report was in April)

PochiSoldi

masonic

pochisoldi wrote: »

TSB haven't been reporting credit card to credit reference agencies since the fiasco started.
(Last update for TSB on my report was in April)

Yes, and this could be damaging to people if it isn't addressed soon. TSB had a card with a long interest free period that will be ending for customers around this time. If they shift their debt to a new 0% deal and TSB fail to report the card has been paid off, then it's going to look like they have twice as much credit card debt than is actually the case.

laven

I know that that phrase relates to something totally different, but I also am seeing a lot of HOLDINGLIST_TITLE. No access to my internet banking, still showing a £200+ credit on my credit card relating to a payment they took twice in June (I've had a refund to my current account, but the credit card balance is still incorrect) and I have now had 3 letters from TSB apologising. I'm going back to Lloyds - and will open a new current account with them ready to transfer into once the credit card thingy is sorted.

Actually, it is a relief to find that other people have similar problems, not just me.

pochisoldi

masonic wrote: »

Yes, and this could be damaging to people if it isn't addressed soon. TSB had a card with a long interest free period that will be ending for customers around this time. If they shift their debt to a new 0% deal and TSB fail to report the card has been paid off, then it's going to look like they have twice as much credit card debt than is actually the case.

Luckily the timing of my clearance of the 0% deal balance, reporting to CRA, and their decision to proceed with their corporate self-imolation/seppuku all occurred in the right order, so all I have "outstanding" is a normal running balance for a spend it/clear it credit card, and my "credit score" has returned to the level it was at before I started running a no-interest balance.

PochiSoldi

laven

Does anyone know what happens to the complaint if you change banks before it is sorted (which could be months)? I now have a new account with a different bank just waiting for me to say the word, which I will do when the overpayment (which has been refunded to me already) is removed from my credit card. I've been able to access my TSB internet banking by using a different browser, but I shouldn't have to. It is all very stressful

ValiantSon

laven wrote: »

Does anyone know what happens to the complaint if you change banks before it is sorted (which could be months)? I now have a new account with a different bank just waiting for me to say the word, which I will do when the overpayment (which has been refunded to me already) is removed from my credit card. I've been able to access my TSB internet banking by using a different browser, but I shouldn't have to. It is all very stressful

The complaint process will continue.

Really, though, having to use a different browser is not stressful.

laven

It is not just the different browser, which is easy. It is the whole thing - access to accounts, unable to make transfers, taking a double payment on my credit card (and not correcting the credit card balance). Thanks for the advice on the complaint(s) - one from me and a second raised on my behalf by Trustcard. I am collecting apology letters!

peterbaker

ValiantSon wrote: »

The complaint process will continue.

Really, though, having to use a different browser is not stressful.

In the last week it has been apparent VS, that you and I do not see eye to eye on many things, especially those which have dumped undue risk and stress on vulnerable customers, and this is another. I do not understand why you step in on a thread like this and effectively dismiss out of hand the existence of continuing total data science ineptitude at a major bank as evidenced by the strange error reported in Edge. Not once but twice effectively.

The appearance of that HOLDINGLIST_TITLE detritus is highly embarrassing evidence of an unhandled error in the ebanking system and all unhandled errors are potentially dangerous. It shows that the programmers and higher ups are not in control of TSB's own use cases and may even show they haven't even scoped all or any use cases for Edge users! What else haven't they scoped?

No ebanking system should be prone to such errors - ever! It is analogous to their CIO running around in the street with his pants down.

I once discovered a serious security flaw in an early version of the Egg ebanking system. A higher up sent me some rather nice red wine from his collection for discreetly pointing it out. In that case, most people would never have noticed the problem as it was somewhat hidden behind the scenes, but this one from TSB ... it is ridiculous. Edge has been the default browser for anyone who has a Windows computer and hasn't deliberately downloaded and switched to another browser for well over two years now. As a browser it isn't popular with smarter users like you or me, but smart users like you or me are not stuck with one bank account either are we?

How many other flaws are there in the ebanking system that TSB have put up live since their disaster which you cannot easily see?

Also, on a more general note, I am totally flummoxed by the calmness and virtual indifference by commentators to the commercially ruthless low levels of compensation that are seemingly now being offered, endorsed by that very questionable outfit, FOS.

Ordinary readers take their lead from apparent consensus that they read here and currently I imagine that suits TSB just fine.

masonic

peterbaker wrote: »

Also, on a more general note, I am totally flummoxed by the calmness and virtual indifference by commentators to the commercially ruthless low levels of compensation that are seemingly now being offered, endorsed by that very questionable outfit, FOS.

What do you think would be a reasonable sum for compensation?

peterbaker

masonic wrote: »

What do you think would be a reasonable sum for compensation?

11 weeks of denied reliable access to banking? Perhaps you forget that there are Human Rights laws which arguably is the reason all banks signed up to the protocols well over a decade ago to offer access to basic banking (clearly that means reliable banking without saying) to persons who do not have a bank account, and if a person DOES admit to having an existing bank account, then no other bank is obliged to give them a second.

But BBA has in its wisdom more recently skewed the message to justify branch closures and rewritten protocols and other documents to suit what they commercially want to do.

However, another document crafted at BBA nearly two years ago is one called BBA Briefing - Closer at hand which can be downloaded hopefully via this BBA website page: https://www.bba.org.uk/news/reports/bba-briefing-closer-at-hand/

In it you can read at the top of page three:

British_Bankers'_Association_on_their_website_via_the_link_given wrote:

Lloyds Banking Group research showed 86% of people who manage their money online worry less because they find it easier to keep track of their finances. This is a good example of what all this digital innovation in banking means for us the customer - this is not innovation for innovation's sake. This is
helpful innovation designed to make managing our finances easier and make our money go further. Furthermore, the rise of mobile banking is particularly relevant for those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, because they are the most likely households in the UK to rely on a mobile for internet access.

Perhaps as TSB seemingly separated from Lloyds under Sabadell control before the above long paragraph was seen as so important for BBA to publish in their three page (only) document, TSB do not agree with it?

If Lloyds research was correct in 2016, is it not even more correct in 2018? So since when is it ok to remove online banking services from 86% (plus?) of people who manage their money online and make them worry more?

I personally believe that stress and psychiatric injury done over weeks and weeks to some of TSB's customers is worth thousands in damages, but one solicitor firm's published thoughts on the general matter (pre-dates the TSB fiasco) is this:
https://www.mills-reeve.com/damages-for-distress-and-psychiatric-injury-05-24-2017/

and since you asked, I offer it for discussion. The point is not what the financial services industry has been able to get away with in cartel fashion regulating itself using FOS as a quasi BBA spokesperson on the subject of what is fair, but what actual damage has been done. I mean Cliff Richard just got £850,000 for having his life turned upside down calculated I know not how, nor do I care to search and find out.

Nevertheless is the worry he suffered for the first 11 weeks after the BBC helicopter overflew his house worth more than the worry suffered by any TSB customer his age?