Will the big banks ever get with the times?

Herbalus

As an aside, the American Express app also has the ability to notify you instantly of a transaction, at times before the PIN terminal has even concluded its thinking.

HSBC allows you to upload ID documents via an app also.

I have apps from about 12 providers and whilst some are more basic than others, they all get updates fairly regularly with new features added. For example on most apps you used to only be able to pay people you'd paid before, but now the majority will allow you to set up new payees. Progress is coming.

kidmugsy

Some years ago we left one bank and moved to another because the first was closing its safety deposit. We had been using it for storing some paperwork and a couple of smallish heirlooms. I thought at the time they were being dunderheads because that's the sort of service that banks with branches can offer and that building societies, for instance, didn't offer. Did they ever find a profitable use for their vault? Not as far as I know.

Recently I've seen that the "challenger bank" Metrobank does offer safety deposits. How sensible. I'll bet they've found a way of making it profitable.

jonesMUFCforever

kidmugsy wrote: »

Some years ago we left one bank and moved to another because the first was closing its safety deposit. We had been using it for storing some paperwork and a couple of smallish heirlooms. I thought at the time they were being dunderheads because that's the sort of service that banks with branches can offer and that building societies, for instance, didn't offer. Did they ever find a profitable use for their vault? Not as far as I know.

Recently I've seen that the "challenger bank" Metrobank does offer safety deposits. How sensible. I'll bet they've found a way of making it profitable.

Yes they did find a profitable use for the vault - it is probably now a wine bar.
Branches who have safety deposit facilities need more staff so that there are always at least 2 members of staff to deal with releasing stuff - no safe custody means less staff needed in branch.

ValiantSon

takman wrote: »

Just like people managed for decades without internet banking and debit cards. These features arn't essential but with technology available today there is no reason why all banks shouldn't have instant updates of transactions on accounts.

But neither is there a desparate need to have them, either.

takman wrote: »

Like I said above I don't like cheques and they need to be phased out, this will only happen when banks stop accepting them as readily.

You keep stating this as if it is a fact, but it isn't, it is just your opinion. Lots of people value still being able to use cheques, and many businesses still use them too. While I don't use a lot of cheques, I would not want to see them completely removed as a payment option.

takman wrote: »

But when they bring cheques into the 21st century and all banks accept them being paid in by imaging and they are paid in by the next working day then they won't be too bad.

I'm not going to disagree that the current clearing times are ridiculous.

takman wrote: »

There is no need for branches at all, more things can be done via telephone banking than in branch.

Again, this your opinion, not a fact.

takman wrote: »

There also is no real need to pay in cash these days unless your a business.

I completely disagree that there is no need for individuals to have the facility to pay in cash to their accounts. There are lots of cash deposits every day. Just because you don't use much cash, it doesn't mean that there aren't other people who do.

takman wrote: »

They could also replace every branch with a cash machine that accept payments into the account (including coins).

They could, but there are other services that branches provide. Furthermore, not everyone would be comfortable with such a machine, and it would still require a physical presence on the high street, with the attendant costs of operating a unit (rates, utilities, etc.).

takman

ValiantSon wrote: »

But neither is there a desparate need to have them, either.

You keep stating this as if it is a fact, but it isn't, it is just your opinion. Lots of people value still being able to use cheques, and many businesses still use them too. While I don't use a lot of cheques, I would not want to see them completely removed as a payment option.

I'm not going to disagree that the current clearing times are ridiculous.

Yes it's my opinion that cheques need to be phased out, that's why I said I didn't like them. People generally don't like change and with current technology and clearing times it's very difficult to justify a cheque as the best way to carry out any transaction.

ValiantSon wrote: »

Again, this your opinion, not a fact.

It is a fact that more can be done on the phone than in a branch. Almost every bank service is carried out centrally and staff in the branch simply interact with this central system.

ValiantSon wrote: »

I completely disagree that there is no need for individuals to have the facility to pay in cash to their accounts. There are lots of cash deposits every day. Just because you don't use much cash, it doesn't mean that there aren't other people who do.

If you get paid directly into your bank then there is little reason why you would need to pay cash into your bank. People can simply withdraw what they need and spend it.
Its so easy to transfer money electronically for everyone there is no need to have so much cash it needs to be paid into the bank.

ValiantSon wrote: »

They could, but there are other services that branches provide. Furthermore, not everyone would be comfortable with such a machine, and it would still require a physical presence on the high street, with the attendant costs of operating a unit (rates, utilities, etc.).

Any other service that a branch provides can be done over the phone or online. Having a network of machines to pay in cash would be far cheaper than having branches.

But like I have said before I personally don't see the point in going to bank branches. Some people really like them and go there regularly but i think it's a complete waste of time.

I've seen many comments on here from people who regularly use bank branches but not once has anyone been able to say a useful service that branches provide apart from being able to pay in cash. Anything else can be done online or over the phone from wherever you are which is far more useful.

msallen

susanfrasher wrote: »

Hopefully, they will.

Keep building the post count "Susan" in readiness to spam us all with your latest scam.

ozaz

Given some of the prior discussion it may be worth mentioning that you can currently pay cash into Starling accounts via NatWest branches. Use of Post Office branches for this purpose is imminent.

Monzo have stated that provision of an arrangement for accepting cash deposits is on their roadmap, but haven’t given an ETA.

EachPenny

takman wrote: »

Yes it's my opinion that cheques need to be phased out, that's why I said I didn't like them. People generally don't like change and with current technology and clearing times it's very difficult to justify a cheque as the best way to carry out any transaction.

There's lots of very good reasons for using cheques, even if they don't apply to you personally.

You also don't have to be someone who is resistant to change to still appreciate the value cheques have as an additional payment method.

About the only sensible argument for getting rid of the cheque payment system would be if the costs saved were returned to customers in the form of better interest rates/reduced bank charges, but that simply isn't going to happen.

Th alternative (i.e. modernising the system to make it more efficient) has been resisted by the banks for years because they were hoping cheques would fall out of use sufficiently that they could stop providing them. Fortunately those attempts have been blocked by consumer groups.

With a modernised cheque processing system and increased risks of fraud involved in other forms of transaction, there is a good chance that cheque payments will see something of a modest renaissance.

Like vinyl records there are lots of people who have never used a cheque and only have a vague understanding of what one is. That leads to irrational prejudice (people rejecting the idea because it is not 'modern') rather than accepting that different methods have their own intrinsic value and the really smart people are those who are willing to adapt their activities to make use of the different technologies to their best advantage.

ValiantSon

takman wrote: »

Yes it's my opinion that cheques need to be phased out, that's why I said I didn't like them. People generally don't like change and with current technology and clearing times it's very difficult to justify a cheque as the best way to carry out any transaction.



It is a fact that more can be done on the phone than in a branch. Almost every bank service is carried out centrally and staff in the branch simply interact with this central system.



If you get paid directly into your bank then there is little reason why you would need to pay cash into your bank. People can simply withdraw what they need and spend it.
Its so easy to transfer money electronically for everyone there is no need to have so much cash it needs to be paid into the bank.



Any other service that a branch provides can be done over the phone or online. Having a network of machines to pay in cash would be far cheaper than having branches.

But like I have said before I personally don't see the point in going to bank branches. Some people really like them and go there regularly but i think it's a complete waste of time.

I've seen many comments on here from people who regularly use bank branches but not once has anyone been able to say a useful service that branches provide apart from being able to pay in cash. Anything else can be done online or over the phone from wherever you are which is far more useful.

All of your comments boil down to you not making use of these services and you not liking them. You are perfectly entitled to behave in this way, but your views become extremely narrow when applied to the rest of the population; not everyone is the same as you.

You cannot dismiss the use of cash within the economy just because you don't think it should be so. Lots of people do make significant use of cash irrespective of how they are paid, and not everyone is paid by electronic transfer. There remains a need for people to be able to easily deposit cash into their accounts. The same goes for cheques. As an example, I suggest that you look at how solicitors settle inheritance payments.

For the record, I make very little use of cash (save for paying my gardener - which remains the most convenient way to pay him) and neither do I often write cheques, but I still sometimes receive them. I do, however, recognise that the way I live my life and manage my finances is not the way that everyone does, nor is it the "correct" way. It is a way of doing it, just as yours is, but neither of us are "correct".

Flobberchops

I recently wandered into a branch of Metro Bank to open a savings account and I have to say I was pleasantly impressed by all the breaks they make with "traditional" banking industry standards. Things like instant card issuance as standard on opening a current account. Bulk coin deposit machine. Safe deposit boxes. Open seven days a week. Opening hours that cleverly don't coincide with their average customer's working day of nine to five. It's only when one bank challenges the norms that you realise so much of the "industry standard" isn't immutable, it's just B.S. that is the product of fear and laziness.


Going forward I think the concept of non-working days will fall by the wayside. There would be protests in the street if you only had access to the internet, or electricity, or even something as trivial as television, on weekdays and (if you're lucky) a few hours on a Saturday. Why should your money be in limbo from close of business on Friday to Monday morning? It's a complete anachronism given we live in the digital age. I also think we'll see the effective death of cheques within our lifetimes.