TSB reduces branch network by a third and loses 900 jobs

eskbanker

Eco_Miser said:

eskbanker said:

Eco_Miser said:

eskbanker said:

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,

Which means that they are being cut out of that part of society that doesn't accept cash.

I suppose it depends on one's definition of 'society' but to me there's a significant difference between 'being cut out of society' and 'not being able to pay some businesses by cash'.

That's true If some businesses is a small number. However this thread seems to be discussing the virtual elimination of cash, in which case some businesses would be a large number, effectively cutting out those who are unable or unwilling to use other methods of payments. 

I think talk of eliminating cash was an exaggeration for effect and it wasn't something I was either predicting (I quoted a chart showing cash reduction curve flattening) or advocating as such - in any case, it's essentially a side issue for a thread about branch closures, but one that always generates animated debate on here, even if it isn't actually being suggested!

Eco_Miser said:

eskbanker said:

It's not up to customers of any business to unilaterally insist on anything, as long as the business is complying with the law and its Ts & Cs.  I do get that some obviously feel that the law should be changed though, but unless or until that happens then it remains valid for businesses to choose which payment methods they accept.  As you point out, current conditions make it even less likely that businesses would be forced to accept grubby bits of paper(/plastic) and metal.

Equally, it's not up to the business to unilaterally insist on anything.
Changes should be negotiated.

As above, I disagree - it's not equal at all!  Provided a business obeys the law and its Ts & Cs, it's at liberty to choose what to sell, which customers to sell to, what prices to charge, which payment methods they're willing to accept, etc, etc, and has no legal or moral obligation to consult with its customers to make such decisions.  Customers can obviously choose to go elsewhere if they're unhappy about a business's stance but they have no right to negotiate.

[Deleted User]

Not sure what all the disagreements are about.

It's fairly obvious that TSB is being lined up to be sold to/merged with another bank and therefore only retaining a thin but geographical wide GB network that can be combined easily with a merger partner's network...

Takmon

Eco_Miser said:

Takmon said:

London7766551 said

This is a very middle class view to take. Not everyone can get a credit card, many many people did not even have bank accounts until the early 2000s. You might want to visit my local bank branches and explain to the people in the long queues they don't need to be there. Some things you just can't do over the internet. 

"i don't see why we should pander to them" do you feel sorry for the banks? nobody is asking you or any individual to pander to anyone. Banks offer a service and the government has a duty of care. Please read the last few pages of the thread as we kind of already went over this.

Yes not everyone can get a credit card but everyone can certainly get a bank account with a debit card unless they have previously committed financial fraud, so the only reason not to use one in the last 20 years is stubbornness and resistance to change. If people aren't forced to change then sometimes they never will.

Well considering you can do everything online with banks like Starling which don't have branches then the only reason you can't do everything online with other banks is because they haven't implemented the system. Realistically the online thing that isn't physically possible online is paying in cash and that's it.
Also from what someone told me about a bank branch visit they do actually have staff members that go up to people in the queue and tell them how they can do what they need too online or over the telephone etc because most don't actually need to be there.

Yes i understand that some people with disabilities, mental illness etc may struggle to use cards but if that's the case then they also wouldn't understand direct debits, utility bills etc so must have help with them anyway and nobody is proposing that everything in the world changes so everything to do with life is within every single persons capability because that just isn't realistic. 

Direct debits and such are normally set up at home, and people that need it can get assistance.

Debit/credit cards  and cash are used out in the real world and not every person with a mental disability has or needs someone to accompany them at all times. JamesPeter 

gave a specific example, to which you raised  the strawman argument of online retailers. I'm talking about bricks and mortar shops.

I don't see how mentioning online retailers is a strawman argument when talking about making it a legal requirement for retailers to accept cash. Personally i think that all businesses should be free to choose what payment methods they accept and should be free to reject cash if they wish. They are legally required to offer the same price no matter the payment method and considering that Cash and Card payments have different costs to process they should be free to be allowed to reject cash or cards as they wish.

I don't think cash should be phased out officially but it should be allowed to decline naturally as the current trend shows. Just like banks shouldn't be obliged to keep branches open but I'm not saying they should definitely close either, i just think it should be left for the banks to decide themselves.