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

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?

masonic

I'd put myself in the moderately inconvenienced camp (I don't use TSB as a main bank account and my main gripe was not being able to access my credit card statements). My compensation offer was reasonable for me in my view.

For those who have had payments fail and who couldn't transact on their accounts, I'd expect them to get quite a bit more than me. It will be interested to see if that happens.

IMHO, the only way anyone is going to get 'thousands' is if they skip the FOS and take legal action.

ValiantSon

peterbaker wrote: »

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.

Oh dear, Peter, nothing better to do today other than continue your campaign against me?

peterbaker wrote: »

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.

I am entitled to my opinions, am I not?

You'll also find that I actually answered the question that was asked.

peterbaker wrote: »

IThe 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 problems accessing TSB on Edge for me, so your conjecture is - as usual - flawed.

peterbaker wrote: »

INo ebanking system should be prone to such errors - ever! It is analogous to their CIO running around in the street with his pants down.

No it isn't. That is a completely nonsensical analogy.

peterbaker wrote: »

II 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.

Truly you are the saviour of modern internet banking!

peterbaker wrote: »

IEdge 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?

And as I said, TSB is acessible on Edge for me, so your conjecture is wrong.

peterbaker wrote: »

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

I don't know.... and neither do you! You are raising the spectre of hidden problems and threats without any knowledge. This is irresponsible scaremongering.

peterbaker wrote: »

IAlso, 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.

My views on the compensation culture in this country are well documented on this forum. Feel free to search my post history to find them. Suffice to say we don't agree.

peterbaker wrote: »

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

What are you talking about?

Peter, you keep trying to pick an argument with me. I have ignored many of your recent posts because I decided it wasn't worth engaging with you. It is now time for you to stop. You are, of course, entitled to post your views - and others are entitled to point out all the flaws with them - but it is not okay to keep attacking me because you don't like me. I'm perfectly fine with you not liking me, but what is not okay is you derailing threads to launch these attacks on me. Stop it.

eskbanker

peterbaker wrote: »

I personally believe that stress and psychiatric injury done over weeks and weeks to some of TSB's customers is worth thousands in damages

If they're able to make a cogent and realistic case for this, without drivelling off into all sorts of irrelevant nonsense about human rights, then they may well receive damages of that order of magnitude, but clearly they'd be edge cases and the majority won't have been suffering in that way.

peterbaker wrote: »

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?

Likewise I have no idea (or desire to find out) how the Cliff Richard figure was derived, but would assume that there is some sort of tariff involved and that his defence team will have been able to make a somewhat stronger case regarding the highly visible, deliberate and legally dubious trashing of his public reputation than what a typical TSB customer will have experienced....

IMHO the majority of compensation offers to TSB customers will be of the same sort of order of magnitude as those for train delays, lost luggage on airlines, telco outages and so on, i.e. accepting responsibility for reasonably direct losses and perhaps a modest top-up for inconvenience but not extending into all sorts of consequential damages such as (genuine, medical) stress, 'injury', etc. That's not to say that's right of course but I'd contend that the financial services industry would be acting in a way not dissimilar to other industries (that you'd presumably also accuse of being cartels), rather than being an outlier or being comparable in any way to a broadcaster compromising a high profile public figure.

peterbaker

Peter, you keep trying to pick an argument with me.

Erm ... take a look at you latest offering here - I shan't repeat it. You make further insults and then claim victimhood?

I have ignored many of your recent posts because I decided it wasn't worth engaging with you.

Likewise but then sometimes your unduly apologist stance for the banks has to be countered for fear that less knowledgeable readers start getting the wrong idea about MSE forum consensus, e.g. on the TSB issues.

You are, of course, entitled to post your views - and others are entitled to point out all the flaws with them - but it is not okay to keep attacking me because you don't like me.

I am entitled to post as long as I stick to the rules and MSE doesn't tell me I must stop. I'm not attacking you, but I am entitled to dispute what you write especially when you repeatedly write about flaws in others arguments without knowledge, and then can't seem to admit your own. I don't have a thought one way or other about "liking you".

I'm perfectly fine with you not liking me ... derailing threads to launch these attacks on me ...

Sounds a bit Freudian that last one, but never mind, I'll put the thread back on track after your latest outburst. Please don't knock it off track again.

So, I think we were saying that the HOLDINGLIST_TITLE detritus some people are getting when trying to login via Microsoft Edge is symptomatic of serious and embarrassing flaws in the scoping of the TSB software and of their lackadaisical approach to implementation of a live ebanking system.

Hint: that is not a flawed argument which is your unsubstantiated assertion. It is a fact that pops up in some people's faces. And to identify it and point it out as an obvious and seriously embarrassing programming flaw is as plain as day to those of us who have ever worked in Application Development and Banking and other failsafe software critical arenas. It doesn't matter if it isn't seen on your PC. If it is seen on more than one unique PC on more than one independent network it is an Application error. In fixing it, the backroom boys might be mildly interested to know what's different about your PC, but because you are visibly unaffected, it doesn't mean we dismiss the concerns of those who are and just tell them to use another browser.


The thread was also discussing levels of compensation offered and I suggested that the levels being reported were derisory given that no proper access to banking is a serious worry to those who feel vulnerable or who do indeed have vulnerable economies. The worry can I dare suggest, be much greater than arises out of some other types of compo case per masonic's useful comparison list, and the people worst effected are not the Sir Cliff's of this world who have massive legal back up to press a case.

I used a BBA article that acknowledged "the way we bank now" as heavily reliant on digital not branches and they quoted Lloyds Bank as being very aware that in 2016 or earlier, 86% of their ebanking customers had said that ebanking reduced their worry about uncertainty in managing their finances. Suddenly take that away from them, and what do you get?

I'd say naturally, if a couple of years later, part of their previous operation has made such a pig's ear of an ebanking update implementation, I am sure there are many at Lloyds and TSB, and at BBA and elsewhere who would freely acknowledge that TSB must have caused untold levels of worry to some people

They might also, if held to task, admit that for "some people" the standard levels of compensation being banded about here as if gospel, are in fact worse than an insult to the people most badly worried and otherwise affected.
.
I have read nothing about TSB trying to individually engage with customers and triage those damaged in order that they treat them ALL fairly and do not leave the worst affected behind in a complete financial mess.

Doc_N

Wouldn't it perhaps be better for everyone else following this thread if little personal squabbles and vendettas could be carried out via private messages?

ValiantSon

peterbaker wrote: »

Erm ... take a look at you latest offering here - I shan't repeat it. You make further insults and then claim victimhood?

Likewise but then sometimes your unduly apologist stance for the banks has to be countered for fear that less knowledgeable readers start getting the wrong idea about MSE forum consensus, e.g. on the TSB issues.

I am entitled to post as long as I stick to the rules and MSE doesn't tell me I must stop. I'm not attacking you, but I am entitled to dispute what you write especially when you repeatedly write about flaws in others arguments without knowledge, and then can't seem to admit your own. I don't have a thought one way or other about "liking you".Sounds a bit Freudian that last one, but never mind, I'll put the thread back on track after your latest outburst. Please don't knock it off track again.

So, I think we were saying that the HOLDINGLIST_TITLE detritus some people are getting when trying to login via Microsoft Edge is symptomatic of serious and embarrassing flaws in the scoping of the TSB software and of their lackadaisical approach to implementation of a live ebanking system.

Hint: that is not a flawed argument which is your unsubstantiated assertion. It is a fact that pops up in some people's faces. And to identify it and point it out as an obvious and seriously embarrassing programming flaw is as plain as day to those of us who have ever worked in Application Development and Banking and other failsafe software critical arenas. It doesn't matter if it isn't seen on your PC. If it is seen on more than one unique PC on more than one independent network it is an Application error. In fixing it, the backroom boys might be mildly interested to know what's different about your PC, but because you are visibly unaffected, it doesn't mean we dismiss the concerns of those who are and just tell them to use another browser.


The thread was also discussing levels of compensation offered and I suggested that the levels being reported were derisory given that no proper access to banking is a serious worry to those who feel vulnerable or who do indeed have vulnerable economies. The worry can I dare suggest, be much greater than arises out of some other types of compo case per masonic's useful comparison list, and the people worst effected are not the Sir Cliff's of this world who have massive legal back up to press a case.

I used a BBA article that acknowledged "the way we bank now" as heavily reliant on digital not branches and they quoted Lloyds Bank as being very aware that in 2016 or earlier, 86% of their ebanking customers had said that ebanking reduced their worry about uncertainty in managing their finances. Suddenly take that away from them, and what do you get?

I'd say naturally, if a couple of years later, part of their previous operation has made such a pig's ear of an ebanking update implementation, I am sure there are many at Lloyds and TSB, and at BBA and elsewhere who would freely acknowledge that TSB must have caused untold levels of worry to some people

They might also, if held to task, admit that for "some people" the standard levels of compensation being banded about here as if gospel, are in fact worse than an insult to the people most badly worried and otherwise affected.
.
I have read nothing about TSB trying to individually engage with customers and triage those damaged in order that they treat them ALL fairly and do not leave the worst affected behind in a complete financial mess.

And so it continues.

molerat

Things are getting better. Instead of having no archived credit card statements available for 2017 and 2018 I now have no archived credit card statements available for 2014 - 2018

Zanderman

ValiantSon wrote: »

And so it continues.

VS, may I suggest you try out the Ignore List.

Quick link:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist