Santander to shut 140 branches

Tallaght

Spanish-owned bank Santander is slashing its branch network by almost a fifth, putting 1,270 jobs at risk.The bank blamed the closures on "changes in how customers are choosing to carry out their banking".

It said branch transactions have fallen 23% in the last three years, while digital transactions have soared 99%.

"We have had to take some very difficult decisions over our less visited branches," said Susan Allen, head of retail and business banking.

The bank said its remaining network of 614 branches will be made up of larger branches offering improved community facilities and smaller branches using the latest technology to offer more convenience.

colsten

List of branches and closure dates: https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/breaking-santander-close-140-more-13895381

Tallaght

A huge surge in online banking is forcing the closure of many branches including all banks across the board.

Flobberchops

In this regard Santander are just following what other high street banks have been doing for years. Bricks and mortar banks are rapidly becoming unnecessary for most types of transaction, and even when there is customer footfall, the bank may still be forced to shut individual branches as part of a wider commercial decision.

eskbanker

Tallaght wrote: »

A huge surge in online banking is [STRIKE]forcing[/STRIKE] enabling banks to justify the closure of many branches including all banks across the board.

Not sure I'd go as far as 'forcing' as such, but there's little doubt that running a wide branch network is a cost that most banks increasingly feel they can do without....

aj23_2

Tallaght wrote: »

A huge surge in online banking is forcing the closure of many branches including all banks across the board.

We are to blame yet we still think it's a shame the high street is failing and causing unemployment.

Branch transactions down 23% in 3 years isn't a lot. It will still be a large amount. That's not even 8% a year.

And 99% over three years is 33% a year. It's just conflating numbers. As with all banks, they just want to main profit margins and make more year on year. Bottom line.

MisterMotivated

aj23 wrote: »

Branch transactions down 23% in 3 years isn't a lot. It will still be a large amount. That's not even 8% a year.

I'd say that over a short timespan like 3 year period, 23% IS a lot. Online banking has been around for many years and branch traffic has declined massively in that time, so it's not like we're going to see a 60% drop as most people stopped using branches and opted for online banking years ago; to lose 23% of the transactions still being carried out in branch is fairly significant.


I think it's a shame and don't want people to lose their jobs, but the world is at a stage now where technology is making so many jobs unnecessary; we need to find a way to adapt and replace the jobs that are being lost. Either that or we abandon new technology in favour of protecting those jobs. After all, Mr Lewis isn't going to randomly decide to remove all of the self-service checkouts from his supermarkets because they'll put people out of work. I'm sure there are young adults today who have never visited a bank branch in their life, but the banks aren't going to sabotage their online offering to justify keeping branches open.

eskbanker

aj23 wrote: »

Branch transactions down 23% in 3 years isn't a lot. It will still be a large amount.

If you want to play the numbers game it could also be argued that reducing the branch network down by 18.6% isn't a lot. It will still be a large amount....

aj23_2

MisterMotivated wrote: »

I'd say that over a short timespan like 3 year period, 23% IS a lot. Online banking has been around for many years and branch traffic has declined massively in that time, so it's not like we're going to see a 60% drop as most people stopped using branches and opted for online banking years ago; to lose 23% of the transactions still being carried out in branch is fairly significant.


I think it's a shame and don't want people to lose their jobs, but the world is at a stage now where technology is making so many jobs unnecessary; we need to find a way to adapt and replace the jobs that are being lost. Either that or we abandon new technology in favour of protecting those jobs. After all, Mr Lewis isn't going to randomly decide to remove all of the self-service checkouts from his supermarkets because they'll put people out of work. I'm sure there are young adults today who have never visited a bank branch in their life, but the banks aren't going to sabotage their online offering to justify keeping branches open.

Over three years... it's not even down a quarter. Like I said, it's not even an 8% drop per year.

I'm only saying this because I thought the number would be higher. Saying that, my Santander always has a queue in it and it's been refurbished.

I know the one in Epping is very big. Whereas the one in Ware is literally about 5m sq, but was generally busy.

aj23_2

eskbanker wrote: »

If you want to play the numbers game it could also be argued that reducing the branch network down by 18.6% isn't a lot. It will still be a large amount....

No one said it isn't. But 20% over a few months is a lot.

But 1000-1500 job losses is a lot too. A lot won't get offered another position elsewhere.

realaledrinker

BBC quoted 'Santander, based in Madrid, Spain'. Par for the course.