Will the big banks ever get with the times?

ValiantSon

RG2015 wrote: »

In my opinion comments like this are unnecessary and lower the tone of the thread. There are good points on both sides of this conversation and I see no need to belittle others' opinions.

You are welcome to hold that view. As I challenged the points made and the poster chose not respond then surely I am entitled to believe that their points are worthless.

All opinions are not created equal.

Skippy13

ValiantSon wrote: »

JuicyJesus didn't say that the elderly were stupid, he said that the banks decided not to abandon cheques after a public outcry, part of which centred around claims (not made by JuicyJesus) that the elderly would not know how to use cards or direct debits. Read the post again.

Apologies to JuicyJesus. I get fed up with the attitude that the elderly are stupid and that people should have change forced on them and I read the post the wrong way.

EachPenny

JuicyJesus wrote: »

I want cheques gone too, they're a fraud magnet and basically pointless in this day and age, but while people insist on using them or wanting them the existing banks rather have to take them. It's a bit silly to criticise them on that basis given that they wanted to phase them out by 2013 but had to back down after everyone started screaming about how elderly people are too stupid to use cards or Direct Debits.

Do you really think cheques are any worse than other forms of payment when it comes to fraud? So long as both parties take sensible precautions cheques remain a relatively safe form of payment. Nobody is under any obligation to have a chequebook with their current account, so if it is something individuals don't want they have the simple option of saying 'no thanks'.

Internet banking is now wide open to fraudulent transactions.... do you think people should be able to get internet banking 'banned' for that reason?

The campaign to keep cheques wasn't just about old people. It was also an issue for people in rural areas who don't necessarily have local banking facilities, who may rely on obtaining and paying for services by post, and who don't necessarily have internet access to support electronic payment methods.

takman wrote: »

He would simply have to get a card reader if cheques were phased out.

I'm always surprised when self employed people like to receive cheques; there is no guarantee that they will get the money which is why most businesses stopped accepting them when cheque guarantee cards were phased out.

Yes, that is a 'simple' answer isn't it. So what happens if you don't have internet or mobile phone coverage, how does your card reader work then?

Rather than being 'surprised', you might want to think of the reasons why cheques still play a valuable part in financial services for some people.

Not everyone lives in 'connected' places, where nobody trusts each other and everybody is expecting to be defrauded or robbed all the time.

As strange a concept as it might be to many town dwellers, there are still places in the country where traders and customers are able to trust each other. If you trade with people who are personally known to each other it is far simpler to accept a cheque from them rather than going to the trouble and expense of setting up electronic payment systems. Many of the places I've lived operate on the basis of trust and reputation - people would be mortified if their cheque wasn't honoured and a trader who got involved in any kind of cheque fraud would be out of business quicker than you can say 'please enter your PIN'.

The cheque guarantee system only ever covered a relatively small sum of money and many businesses accept cheques for far larger amounts. The phasing out of the guarantee scheme was used as an excuse by some retailers, but there are still many businesses that are quite happy to accept cheques.

Qubit

The internet has not yet come for banking. But it will, and we will see big changes, just like in every area the internet comes for.

Anthorn

mrchrisbrogan wrote: »

Do we think the big banks will ever get with the times and have more up to date features like MONZO and starling?

There does appear to be some confusion over the term "legacy" when applied to banks. This was something that was highlighted by the new wave of emerging Fintech challenger banks such as Monzo, Tandem and Atom but not so much by Starling. Basically it is seen that existing banks have legacy systems built in the past and when they want to introduce something new they need to revise their systems. But the systems of the new banks are new, built from the ground up and therefore in tune with todays needs. What I have seen variously referred to as "Digital Bank 3.0" and "a new kind of bank".

So basically there's your answer: Existing banks don't do what the new banks are doing because they can't because their systems are not built for it. We have already seen what happens when an inherited legacy system is updated: TSB!

takman

EachPenny wrote: »

Yes, that is a 'simple' answer isn't it. So what happens if you don't have internet or mobile phone coverage, how does your card reader work then?

Yes this can be an issue and i know large areas where you can get no signal on any network but it has improved a lot in recent years.

But i still think all traders should at least give the option of a card payments considering you can get one for fairly cheap with no costs unless it is used.

EachPenny wrote: »

Rather than being 'surprised', you might want to think of the reasons why cheques still play a valuable part in financial services for some people.

Not everyone lives in 'connected' places, where nobody trusts each other and everybody is expecting to be defrauded or robbed all the time.

As strange a concept as it might be to many town dwellers, there are still places in the country where traders and customers are able to trust each other. If you trade with people who are personally known to each other it is far simpler to accept a cheque from them rather than going to the trouble and expense of setting up electronic payment systems. Many of the places I've lived operate on the basis of trust and reputation - people would be mortified if their cheque wasn't honoured and a trader who got involved in any kind of cheque fraud would be out of business quicker than you can say 'please enter your PIN'.

The cheque guarantee system only ever covered a relatively small sum of money and many businesses accept cheques for far larger amounts. The phasing out of the guarantee scheme was used as an excuse by some retailers, but there are still many businesses that are quite happy to accept cheques.

I wouldn't be concerned about people writing cheques knowing they didn't have the money. It's people who write a cheque and simply don't have enough money in the account due to poor financial planning.
Some people get "caught out" with contactless payments which are less than £30 coming out a couple of days after the card is used. Nevermind a cheque which could be taken a week after it is written, or longer depending on when its cashed.
I know several people who couldn't use cheques because they would always bounce.

EachPenny wrote: »

The campaign to keep cheques wasn't just about old people. It was also an issue for people in rural areas who don't necessarily have local banking facilities, who may rely on obtaining and paying for services by post, and who don't necessarily have internet access to support electronic payment methods.

Even if someone doesn't use online banking they could still pay bills by Direct Debits, Pay by card over the phone or use telephone banking to make a payment directly to the company.

Even going back to paying the local handyman that could be done by telephone banking aswell. If he is happy to accept a cheque then i'm sure he would also be happy to leave his bank details for the person to ring up their bank at a convenient time to send the payment.

The main issue i have with cheques is the antiquated processing system they use to make the payment and the time it takes. Like i said before if all banks processed them by the next day and allowed them to be paid in online by an image then they would be a reasonable payment method.

p00hsticks

takman wrote: »

I wouldn't be concerned about people writing cheques knowing they didn't have the money. It's people who write a cheque and simply don't have enough money in the account due to poor financial planning.

Those of us who grew up using cheques as the only means of payment or getting cash (and I'm only in my late fifties!) are probably more likely to have a good handle on what's in our accounts - you had to as you knew there could be a lag befor a cheque you wrote got presented and so you were taught to keep a running balance of payments out in your cheque book.

It's those who are used to paying with a debit card for everything and just assume that what's showing as their current online balance is always an accurate reflection of what they have that are probably more likely to get caught unawares if there are delays in the acquiring process - you only have to see the number of threads on the subject on this forum ! I agree they'd stuggle with the concept of paying by cheque.

mgdavid

takman wrote: »

So you think having banking facilities available 24/7 so everyone can use them is a narrow view compared to having them available only 9 - 5 Monday to Friday... :rotfl
.........

no, you either didn't read my post properly or are being deliberately disingenuous.


What I said was that people who want to use a branch manage to get to them during current opening hours, because many people have free time during banking hours. Just because you might be working 9 to 5 Monday to Friday doesn't mean the rest of the population does. Millions of people don't work at all, further millions work part-time or do shifts.


PS - many bank branches are also open on Saturdays.

takman

mgdavid wrote: »

no, you either didn't read my post properly or are being deliberately disingenuous.

What I said was that people who want to use a branch manage to get to them during current opening hours, because many people have free time during banking hours. Just because you might be working 9 to 5 Monday to Friday doesn't mean the rest of the population does. Millions of people don't work at all, further millions work part-time or do shifts.

PS - many bank branches are also open on Saturdays.

I understand your point but if traditional opening hours of 9 to 5 Monday to Friday and a few hours on Saturday are good enough then why do Metro Bank branches open until 8 PM on weekdays and something like 8 -6 on Saturdays and even 11 - 5 on Sundays.

They wouldn't do it if there wasn't a demand for it.

The point i'm making is that if they had machines which could be accessed 24/7 to pay in cash (including coins) it would be much more convenient as that is the only thing you can't do on the phone/online.

pafpcg

So far, it's seems all the discussion in this thread has been about how "challenger" banks offer superior services to the traditional banks (HSBS, Barclays, Lloyds, etc), and specifically Monzo, Starling, Atom & Metro. I've considered these banks and have decided that they offer me little or no improvement over my existing suppliers. However, let me suggest one further "challenger" bank which, for me, has made a significant improvement to what's available: Tesco Bank. Not only is there a competitive interest rate on current account balances and the functionality of the web-site is adequate for my needs (deficient only in delays of several minutes in the transfer of funds both inwards and outwards), but there is a major offering not available from the traditional banks: Tesco Bank operates on a seven-day week! Payments can be scheduled for a specific date and they will be actioned on that date even if that date falls on a Saturday or Sunday - they won't be delayed until the next working day as at the traditional banks. Of course, I'm still using Lloyds, Nationwide, Santander & Clydesdale banks, but Tesco Bank offers that additional facility for when I need it.