TSB reduces branch network by a third and loses 900 jobs

Thrugelmir

dahj said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Thrugelmir said:

dahj said:

Thrugelmir said:

The "spin" helps keep matters in perspective. Once free of the EU no doubt will see some of the forced demergers reversed. Made no commercial sense given the advent of digital banking. 

To be blunt, Halifax and Bank of Scotland were more desirable than TSB.

Lloyds TSB Scotland ( new TSB) wasn't allowed to be merged with Bank of Scotland due to Scottish market share. They had to shed market share in England and Wales due the the merger of Halifax and Lloyds TSB (new Lloyds) too.

Halifax brought LLoyds to it's knees. A marriage of convenience without prior due diligence was an expensive mistake. 

Well the BoS part of Halifax to be fair.

Lloyds TSB also went to the UK Government with the begging bowl so weren't in a position to refuse. 

That's factually incorrect. To keep HBOS afloat prior to the merger. The Treasury provided HBOS with an undisclosed loan of £25bn to stop it going the way of Northern Rock.  

London7766551

Sadly bank branches are outdated and won't last long. It would seem to me on the government needs to state to banks they must provide a level of service in each town of a certain size.

In my mind this means each bank pays to set up an independent common branch network across the UK that operates a branch in each town of a certain size, which allows customers (from any main bank) to carry out tasks much the same as they do now in individual bank branches at the common branch instead without the need for several banks in one town having branches. However this would require all banks to follow the same process and standards. i.e if you open an account, the procedure is the same for every bank and defined. If you want to draw out cash, or pay in cash, machines in the common branch would allow this. In addition staff at a common branch would be able to assist with account issues. Each bank could have a desk at the common branch to allow for other services. A mobile common branch would operate in small towns. Question is, by the time such a system is set up, would it be cheaper to keep separate branches in each town and keep them open? In addition I doubt the banks would agree to such a system unless forced.

Also with issue is cash, it is going out of fashion rapidly. The government must again state to businesses they must accept cash and an ATM must be provided in towns. By law if required. Extensive use of the post office network of branches could come in use. 

eskbanker

London7766551 said:

The government must again state to businesses they must accept cash 

Many businesses legitimately choose not to accept cash payments, why should government intervene to force them to wind the clock back?

London7766551 said:

In my mind this means each bank pays to set up an independent common branch network across the UK that operates a branch in each town of a certain size, which allows customers (from any main bank) to carry out tasks much the same as they do now in individual bank branches at the common branch instead without the need for several banks in one town having branches.

[...]

Extensive use of the post office network of branches could come in use. 

The majority of banks already have such physical banking arrangements with Post Offices and encourage its use when closing branches....

https://www.postoffice.co.uk/everydaybanking

Edit: TSB being one such example, in the press release at the start of the thread:

In addition, TSB is further enhancing its partnership with the Post Office including adding the ability to deposit and withdraw cash using a card, for both business and personal customers, and collect coin change from pre-agreed locations.

jonesMUFCforever

Well some locations will fare better than others - for example if you live in the Lleyn peninsula or Isle of Anglesey the nearest branch (after the closure of Prestatyn) will be Wrexham (or Chester as the crow flies) the whole length of North Wales!

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir said:

dahj said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Thrugelmir said:

dahj said:

Thrugelmir said:

The "spin" helps keep matters in perspective. Once free of the EU no doubt will see some of the forced demergers reversed. Made no commercial sense given the advent of digital banking. 

To be blunt, Halifax and Bank of Scotland were more desirable than TSB.

Lloyds TSB Scotland ( new TSB) wasn't allowed to be merged with Bank of Scotland due to Scottish market share. They had to shed market share in England and Wales due the the merger of Halifax and Lloyds TSB (new Lloyds) too.

Halifax brought LLoyds to it's knees. A marriage of convenience without prior due diligence was an expensive mistake. 

Well the BoS part of Halifax to be fair.

Lloyds TSB also went to the UK Government with the begging bowl so weren't in a position to refuse. 

That's factually incorrect. To keep HBOS afloat prior to the merger. The Treasury provided HBOS with an undisclosed loan of £25bn to stop it going the way of Northern Rock.  

No, it's not. Never said HBOS didn't need support.

LloydsTSB required Treasury/ BOE funding so would have been partially nationalised anyway in any case.

bundoran

jonesMUFCforever said:

Well some locations will fare better than others - for example if you live in the Lleyn peninsula or Isle of Anglesey the nearest branch (after the closure of Prestatyn) will be Wrexham (or Chester as the crow flies) the whole length of North Wales!

If this posting is referring to TSB then the TSB branch in Chester closed down in June, and the nearest branch would be the one on the main road through Flint town centre.

London7766551

eskbanker said:

London7766551 said:

The government must again state to businesses they must accept cash 

Many businesses legitimately choose not to accept cash payments, why should government intervene to force them to wind the clock back?

London7766551 said:

In my mind this means each bank pays to set up an independent common branch network across the UK that operates a branch in each town of a certain size, which allows customers (from any main bank) to carry out tasks much the same as they do now in individual bank branches at the common branch instead without the need for several banks in one town having branches.

[...]

Extensive use of the post office network of branches could come in use. 

The majority of banks already have such physical banking arrangements with Post Offices and encourage its use when closing branches....

https://www.postoffice.co.uk/everydaybanking

Edit: TSB being one such example, in the press release at the start of the thread:

In addition, TSB is further enhancing its partnership with the Post Office including adding the ability to deposit and withdraw cash using a card, for both business and personal customers, and collect coin change from pre-agreed locations.

Vast numbers of people still use cash and do not have a card or app. Put simply, there is a large chunk of the population that are old and have always used cash and always will. They are being cut out of society, I have seen it with my own eyes, people being turned away from places. I don't know about you but i'd like to think in my old age society still supports us, because when we are old, very old, I am sure we will be past it and know little of the modern way of life whatever it may be. In 20 years it may be a different story, but we need to support the old generation of cash people while they are here.

In addition cash offers privacy. I am not happy to sign over total control of money to these card companies, if it was a government (privacy aside) payment network perhaps, but they are not. They are multinational companies who want your data and a profit by selling that data. In addition what happens when all cash is gone? they have total control. Much the same with Amazon and other companies and physical shops. Cash is also used by many low income families to budget.

I'm aware you can carry out tasks as the post office already, however I do not believe the services it offers are sufficient to replace a branch. But the banks would like us to think they are I am sure.

Takmon

London7766551 said:

eskbanker said:

London7766551 said:

The government must again state to businesses they must accept cash 

Many businesses legitimately choose not to accept cash payments, why should government intervene to force them to wind the clock back?

London7766551 said:

In my mind this means each bank pays to set up an independent common branch network across the UK that operates a branch in each town of a certain size, which allows customers (from any main bank) to carry out tasks much the same as they do now in individual bank branches at the common branch instead without the need for several banks in one town having branches.

[...]

Extensive use of the post office network of branches could come in use. 

The majority of banks already have such physical banking arrangements with Post Offices and encourage its use when closing branches....

https://www.postoffice.co.uk/everydaybanking

Edit: TSB being one such example, in the press release at the start of the thread:

In addition, TSB is further enhancing its partnership with the Post Office including adding the ability to deposit and withdraw cash using a card, for both business and personal customers, and collect coin change from pre-agreed locations.

Vast numbers of people still use cash and do not have a card or app. Put simply, there is a large chunk of the population that are old and have always used cash and always will. They are being cut out of society, I have seen it with my own eyes, people being turned away from places. I don't know about you but i'd like to think in my old age society still supports us, because when we are old, very old, I am sure we will be past it and know little of the modern way of life whatever it may be. In 20 years it may be a different story, but we need to support the old generation of cash people while they are here.

In addition cash offers privacy. I am not happy to sign over total control of money to these card companies, if it was a government (privacy aside) payment network perhaps, but they are not. They are multinational companies who want your data and a profit by selling that data. In addition what happens when all cash is gone? they have total control. Much the same with Amazon and other companies and physical shops. Cash is also used by many low income families to budget.

I'm aware you can carry out tasks as the post office already, however I do not believe the services it offers are sufficient to replace a branch. But the banks would like us to think they are I am sure.

My grandmother in her 90's hasn't been to a branch in years and much prefers to pay by card and do telephone banking because it means she doesn't have to waste time going to the bank and also doesn't like the idea of carrying around cash just in case. There is no reason elderly people can't use cards and just because they are stubborn doesn't mean we have to pander to them.

Bank branches are redundant and a waste of time and are thing of the past which will soon be phased out and cash is going the same way because card payments and similar are so much easier and more convenient. 

eskbanker

London7766551 said:
there is a large chunk of the population that are old and have always used cash and always will. They are being cut out of society, I have seen it with my own eyes, people being turned away from places.

They're not being cut out of society!  They can continue to use cash if they prefer, but can only do so when spending money in places that'll accept it, otherwise they need to change their habits - it's not an inalienable right for customers to insist on preferred means of payment.  Many would no doubt be happier to pay with Luncheon Vouchers, Green Shield stamps, ten bob notes, etc, etc, but managed to move on from those - likewise the number of businesses that'll accept cheques continues to decline inexorably despite them being favoured by some....

London7766551 said:
In addition cash offers privacy. I am not happy to sign over total control of money to these card companies, if it was a government (privacy aside) payment network perhaps, but they are not. They are multinational companies who want your data and a profit by selling that data. In addition what happens when all cash is gone? they have total control. 

I thought that most who subscribed to that 'shadowy control' line of argument were violently opposed to the idea of government centralisation, so that's a novel twist on that one!

London7766551 said:
Cash is also used by many low income families to budget.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that there should be government intervention to force companies to allow this to be perpetuated!

London7766551 said:

I'm aware you can carry out tasks as the post office already, however I do not believe the services it offers are sufficient to replace a branch. But the banks would like us to think they are I am sure.

It seems to me that the tasks that can be carried out at post offices are clearly spelt out above - I don't think anyone would try to claim that they're a direct like-for-like replacements for bank branches, but your idea of a parallel full-function common shared bank is just fantasy I'm afraid.  I do agree with other posters who've observed that it's unreasonable for banks to expect customers to turn up to branches for activities like ID verification, while simultaneously heavily reducing their physical presence, when there are alternatives available.

JamesPeter

Extensive use of the post office network of branches could come in use. 

The majority of banks already have such physical banking arrangements with Post Offices and encourage its use when closing branches....

https://www.postoffice.co.uk/everydaybanking

Edit: TSB being one such example, in the press release at the start of the thread:

In addition, TSB is further enhancing its partnership with the Post Office including adding the ability to deposit and withdraw cash using a card, for both business and personal customers, and collect coin change from pre-agreed locations.

That is all well and good, however the Post Office in the village I live in closed down in February and the TSB in the local town 14 miles away is also now closing next year (incidentally, TSB in their 'closing down review' proposal mention our ((now former)) village post office as being open for business for TSB customers to use instead of the closing branch)!  The only other bank in this town is HSBC and I have my other current account there (came in very handy when TSB managed to lose all my data in their systems crash back in 2018).

The only Post Office in the town has shrunk from a large building with lots of teller positions to being inside a small branch of WH Smith, with only two teller positions (one of which I have never seen open). The queue on some days streches out of the door onto the street - particularly around Christmas time or when an e-bay seller with loads of parcels to send is at the head of the queue.

The TSB that is closing down was one of those 'forcibly' transferred from Lloyds TSB along with its client base (including me). The town 18 miles in the other direction still has a Lloyds (for now anyway), so I will probably move my account back to Lloyds.

I just feel very sorry for the staff at these branches which are closing. One lady at the TSB has been there for years - originally at the 'old' TSB, then Lloyds TSB, now TSB again, soon to be unemployed. At 63 I doubt she (and some of her similar colleagues) will find new jobs in the current climate.