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

boo_star

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

Modulus Checking

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

Yeah, that.

EarthBoy

!!! wrote: »

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

MDMD wrote: »

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

That example is irrelevant to the issue of sort code portability when changing your bank, because Lloyds and TSB don't share complete sort codes, they only share the first couple of digits of the range, so, for example, 77-20-30 is only Lloyds, and 77-68-38, is only TSB.

JuicyJesus

Ballard wrote: »

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 are very few things that physically get sent to bank branches any more. Cheques are all imaged, most DD setups are through AUDDIS. I think I maybe saw ten paper DD setup forms, tops, in my time at a bank, they all got bundled up with other forms and shuttled to a service centre to deal with.

The real reason is that each sort code refers to a particular bank by convention and the loss of that as a quick reference is not worth any of the mooted benefits of number portability (versus e.g. automatically forwarding credits like CASS does). This is particularly the case with things like (e.g.) cheque fraud where seeing (e.g.) a HSBC sort code on a Co-op Bank cheque is a very simple and helpful tell.

hoc

eskbanker wrote: »

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

Very interesting, thank you for this. Indeed there really isn't any recommendation, just a study which then concludes the obvious that it would come down to cost, complexity and timing. Given 5 years has passed it is clearly not something being considered further.


The study is essentially proposing some kind of proxy or lookup "identifier". It's interesting decentralised models e.g. using blockchain technology is not considered but this may be due to era of the report. Anyway, I don't quite understand why, for example, the IBAN which already encapsulates these details could not be used. It is an international standard already in use and could become the single identifier for national or international payments. It has even more validation with a checksum directly built like a credit card number and unlike sort code which can be checked externally only. It is mentioned in the report briefly in page 35 as a possibility for the new identifier. Is the problem with universal IBAN use because it would be too long to be practical? This is listed as the critism of IBAN, on wikipedia anyway.


For convenience I am ignoring the setup necessary to reference a fixed IBAN becoming the new identifier universal (using bank and sort code at time of freeze) which then translates if different to the new bank and sort code if account has been switched. Scrolling through the wikipedia IBAN page reveals the different ways in which countries are generating it. UK's is based on BIC + sort code + account number. Many European countries and most of the other ones outside Europe are not using sort code (bank/branch) numbers. It is typically a national bank code + account number only. So in the case of UK using BOE instead of directly the bank. National transfers within these countries may of course use other identifiers similar to sort code, I don't know.

JuicyJesus

hoc wrote: »

It's interesting decentralised models e.g. using blockchain technology is not considered but this may be due to era of the report.

How would a blockchain help matters? It would just be a higher-overhead means of achieving the same (already over-complex) end - a central database.

pavane

!!! wrote: »

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

Isn't this the point of the question? Whether there is good reason behind the convention. I don't understand this forum sometimes. Are the 4 who gave thanks to this reply showing they agree this is a meaningful answer to the question or thankful for learning sort codes can't be moved currently?

[Deleted User]

The question was answered...

pavane

binaryuniverse wrote: »

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

Not really. I moved house. Royal Mail is automatically sending my letters to my new address. So it's kinda like asking for that and this happens today but similarly temporarily after account switching. The mobile number is a good example. If you ask Vodafone for a new number they will give one in the Vodafone range. You can then move to O2 and take it with you despite it not being in the O2 range. Similar anomalies exist in phone numbers for example moving local numbers out of the geographic location range.

Lots of strange thanks being awarded to terse or irrelevant answers. I will tell you the real answer. The sort code is useful within the current convention. It helps with the way things are done today. There is nothing magical or critical about it. If UK banking was starting over it most likely wouldn't be designed this way. However it is too much trouble changing it around for what is seen as a benefit for a few. The reality is new payment methods and digital currencies will eventually replace this practice with more personally meaningful such as telephone number or email. So the change will happen from outside the banking system not from within because not enough customers are as attached to their account number as their telephone number.

[Deleted User]

Royal Mail are using a redirect - when you switch accounts via CASS the same occurs - payments sent to your old account number and sort code are redirected to your new one - you are not transferring the existing to your new.

Comparing it to a mobile phone number is completely irrelevant and off-topic.

hoc

UK mobile networks have assigned prefix ranges like sort codes. My mobile number begins 07786 which is a Vodafone prefix. Years later after switching networks several times I am currently using the same number with Three despite it not being in the standard Three prefix. So it is absolutely relevant, it is the exact same porting scenario I asked about from the bank account perspective.


I hadn't thought about a permanent redirect but this could also be applied as the system is already in place. After a switch payments to the old account are automatically redirected to the new for up to 3 years. Exactly similar to Royal Mail's redirect service up to 2 years, only difference is RM doesn't offer this service for free. So really the easiest solution would be to extend the current post-switch redirect beyond 3 years. It's not the cleanest of solutions but would absolutely work presuming the old bank doesn't go bust as presumably this is being managed at individual bank level not some central. I have a Gmail account I haven't used directly in probably 10 years but still receive email to it which gets automatically redirected to my new account.