Are there valid technical reasons preventing retaining account numbers in switch?

hoc

Unlike for example switching from one mobile operator to another where the phone number can be kept, bank account numbers can't be taken to a new provider. Are there fundamental issues why the sort code must remain bank specific? Besides a basic security validation tool does it play a vital role in the banking system? I'm trying to understand if this established practice would be a nightmare for banks to change or it's minor but simply not enough demand to consider.

[Deleted User]

Yes.
The sort codes are unique to the bank and cannot be moved over to another bank.

binaryuniverse

It's kinda like asking if you can keep your building number and postcode, when you move house.

born_again

We also use sort code checkers to ensure that when customers are making payments, the sort code matches the bank the payment is going too.
Which helps prevent payments going to the wrong bank.

MDMD

!!! wrote: »

Yes.
The sort codes are unique to the bank and cannot be moved over to another bank.

Although when Lloyds spun off TSB, some old Lloyds sort codes (starting 30) went to TSB (which used to have codes starting 77) and I think vice versa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sort_code

So it’s not insurmountable, just a bit messy

Ben8282

Agree about the sort codes. As for the account numbers, the existing account number may not correspond to the new bank's number range for accounts or may already be used by another customer etc

18cc

I believe in for example Sweden where everybody has as a 'person number' - a bit equivalent our NI number - then the person number is used as part of the account number although of course the sort code changes if you switch bank

boo_star

18cc wrote: »

I believe in for example Sweden where everybody has as a 'person number' - a bit equivalent our NI number - then the person number is used as part of the account number although of course the sort code changes if you switch bank

Isn't there a form of "error checking" built into the sort code and account number combination a bit like card numbers?

YorkshireBoy

boo_star wrote: »

Isn't there a form of "error checking" built into the sort code and account number combination a bit like card numbers?

Modulus Checking

https://www.sortcodes.co.uk/modulus-checking

eskbanker

hoc wrote: »

Unlike for example switching from one mobile operator to another where the phone number can be kept, bank account numbers can't be taken to a new provider. Are there fundamental issues why the sort code must remain bank specific? Besides a basic security validation tool does it play a vital role in the banking system? I'm trying to understand if this established practice would be a nightmare for banks to change or it's minor but simply not enough demand to consider.

You might wish to read the FCA's 2014 study into account number portability, which examined various alternative means of achieving this but fell short of actually recommending any for implementation, in the absence of a compelling cost/benefit case:

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/research/anp-research.pdf

Ballard

Retaining the sort code would invariably cause issues with cheques and direct debit mandates. Unless things have changed since 2015 these items are sent to the account holders branch for processing and this is all derived from the sort code. I do appreciate that electronic versions of both are now also used but paper versions are still processed.

There’s also the issue with agency banks. These are smaller banks who
are sponsored into systems like BACS via one of the clearers. An example would be BLME who from memory use Lloyd’s banks 30-xx-xx sort codes. I really don’t know how that could work if a customer wanted to retain a 40 sort code.

The account number itself would also cause issues as some banks use the first five numbers as a pointer to the customer with the remaining three to identify the account type.

I dare say that there are other issues but for me this would be a non-starter, particularly as it’s trying to fix a problem that doesn’t really exist.