Please delete my forum account delete delete delete delete delete runabout outside

eskbanker

Deleted_User said:
True, my suggestion of payees having an optional description/nickname field is not a mandatory regulation, but many banks have already implemented it (see details posted elsewhere in this discussion). Why do you think they did it? Because it's a sensible feature to properly implement CoP and help prevent money transfers going astray. The frontline staff of Santander and Halifax have agreed with me it's a useful feature and suggested customers consider requesting it be implemented.

I find your paragraph on TSB particularly interesting and let me tell you why. Although I don't bank with Lloyds but with Halifax (part of the Lloyds group) and evidently Lloyds don't have the optional description/nickname field which I've requested since Halifax doesn't have it. However the TSB redesigned system does include the new feature (unlike Halifax/Lloyds) where payees have the optional description/nickname field. So, regardless of the criticism TSB may have suffered over the changeover period their team was smart enough to realise this feature should be included as part of CoP.

Just to reiterate, you're conflating nickname functionality with CoP but they're unrelated implementations.

As posted previously, Tesco had nicknames long before CoP and I'm pretty sure that RBS/NatWest did too, while TSB's new systems were also designed before the CoP spec was agreed.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that having nickname functionality makes CoP a better experience, and there's no harm in making that point to banks that don't have it, but it's still inaccurate to characterise them as not having implemented CoP "properly" or that they're "making a mockery" of it....

ItsComingRome

Deleted_User said:

pafpcg said:

Deleted_User said:

masonic said:

colsten said:

OP has apparently raised it with the FCA. Who will no doubt imminently request all banks to immediately get working on an enhancement to their systems.

Hmm, ok. Not the bank itself then...

Yes, of course I have raised it with the banks themselves. Until I mentioned, it to them many frontline staff weren't aware of the problem but, after explaining it, agree with me that it would be a worthwhile improvement and probably assist anti fraud measures. They suggest if sufficient customers requested the enhancement, it's likely that the banks will consider scheduling it in.

With your extensive experience of IT, I'm surprised that you still expect that banks will be prepared to make any changes to their systems other than those mandated by legislation/regulation or which the banks believe will give them a commercial advantage. 

There is no question that banks are businesses. Having been in business myself as a director of a company I can assure you that any business which wants to do well will listen to its customers. Those who don't are likely suffer the consequences. I was one of the IT team who around 40-odd years ago (well before the digital age) designed the very first computerisation of Natwest Bank savings accounts. Design of its facilities was very much focused on making things easy for customers and staff who Natwest consulted.

I'm fascinated by your suggestion that banks will usually only implement features "mandated by legislation/regulation". True, my suggestion of payees having an optional description/nickname field is not a mandatory regulation, but many banks have already implemented it (see details posted elsewhere in this discussion). Why do you think they did it? Because it's a sensible feature to properly implement CoP and help prevent money transfers going astray. The frontline staff of Santander and Halifax have agreed with me it's a useful feature and suggested customers consider requesting it be implemented.

I find your paragraph on TSB particularly interesting and let me tell you why. Although I don't bank with Lloyds but with Halifax (part of the Lloyds group) and evidently Lloyds don't have the optional description/nickname field which I've requested since Halifax doesn't have it. However the TSB redesigned system does include the new feature (unlike Halifax/Lloyds) where payees have the optional description/nickname field. So, regardless of the criticism TSB may have suffered over the changeover period their team was smart enough to realise this feature should be included as part of CoP.

I don't agree with your suggestion that my only solution is to go through the massive hassle of loosing all the advantages I have gained with Santander (eg being a Select Customer) & Halifax over 40 years and chicken out to another bank. If all customers took a similar route instead of lobbying their banks to improve the service, our banking system would be in a sorry state.

Err, what?

If all customers voted with their feet over issues banks would have to start looking at implementing the features the customers want, or else risk having no customers.

It's exactly the reason why people tell people to vote with their feet because ranting and raving on an internet forum achieves nothing. The bank still has your custom, what incentive is there to implement any change?

sheramber

If banks listened to their customers they wouldn't have closed all their branches.

Thrugelmir

Deleted_User said:

pafpcg said:

Deleted_User said:

masonic said:

colsten said:

OP has apparently raised it with the FCA. Who will no doubt imminently request all banks to immediately get working on an enhancement to their systems.

Hmm, ok. Not the bank itself then...

Yes, of course I have raised it with the banks themselves. Until I mentioned, it to them many frontline staff weren't aware of the problem but, after explaining it, agree with me that it would be a worthwhile improvement and probably assist anti fraud measures. They suggest if sufficient customers requested the enhancement, it's likely that the banks will consider scheduling it in.

With your extensive experience of IT, I'm surprised that you still expect that banks will be prepared to make any changes to their systems other than those mandated by legislation/regulation or which the banks believe will give them a commercial advantage. 

The frontline staff of Santander and Halifax have agreed with me it's a useful feature and suggested customers consider requesting it be implemented.

Frontline staff are trained to be agreeable and polite in arkward situations. Easiest way of getting rid of a customer and moving onto the next. Why waste time debating something over which they have no control or influence. When there's more productive uses of their time.

Thrugelmir

Deleted_User said:

ItsComingRome said:

Deleted_User said:

pafpcg said:

Deleted_User said:

masonic said:

colsten said:

OP has apparently raised it with the FCA. Who will no doubt imminently request all banks to immediately get working on an enhancement to their systems.

Hmm, ok. Not the bank itself then...

Yes, of course I have raised it with the banks themselves. Until I mentioned, it to them many frontline staff weren't aware of the problem but, after explaining it, agree with me that it would be a worthwhile improvement and probably assist anti fraud measures. They suggest if sufficient customers requested the enhancement, it's likely that the banks will consider scheduling it in.

With your extensive experience of IT, I'm surprised that you still expect that banks will be prepared to make any changes to their systems other than those mandated by legislation/regulation or which the banks believe will give them a commercial advantage. 

There is no question that banks are businesses. Having been in business myself as a director of a company I can assure you that any business which wants to do well will listen to its customers. Those who don't are likely suffer the consequences. I was one of the IT team who around 40-odd years ago (well before the digital age) designed the very first computerisation of Natwest Bank savings accounts. Design of its facilities was very much focused on making things easy for customers and staff who Natwest consulted.

I'm fascinated by your suggestion that banks will usually only implement features "mandated by legislation/regulation". True, my suggestion of payees having an optional description/nickname field is not a mandatory regulation, but many banks have already implemented it (see details posted elsewhere in this discussion). Why do you think they did it? Because it's a sensible feature to properly implement CoP and help prevent money transfers going astray. The frontline staff of Santander and Halifax have agreed with me it's a useful feature and suggested customers consider requesting it be implemented.

I find your paragraph on TSB particularly interesting and let me tell you why. Although I don't bank with Lloyds but with Halifax (part of the Lloyds group) and evidently Lloyds don't have the optional description/nickname field which I've requested since Halifax doesn't have it. However the TSB redesigned system does include the new feature (unlike Halifax/Lloyds) where payees have the optional description/nickname field. So, regardless of the criticism TSB may have suffered over the changeover period their team was smart enough to realise this feature should be included as part of CoP.

I don't agree with your suggestion that my only solution is to go through the massive hassle of loosing all the advantages I have gained with Santander (eg being a Select Customer) & Halifax over 40 years and chicken out to another bank. If all customers took a similar route instead of lobbying their banks to improve the service, our banking system would be in a sorry state.

Err, what?

If all customers voted with their feet over issues banks would have to start looking at implementing the features the customers want, or else risk having no customers.

If all customers voted with their feet over issues banks would have to start looking at implementing the features the customers want, or else risk having no customers.

I presume you've never run any successful commercial business. Most normal businesses speak to and listen to their customers regularly and ask for their opinions about service before the customers walk out by which time it can be too late to save the business.

I've never known a bank fail because the customers have walked out.  I've known many successful commercial businesses fail for a whole variety of reasons. Simplistic to suggest that customers alone are the sole cause of failure. 

ItsComingRome

Deleted_User said:

ItsComingRome said:

Deleted_User said:

pafpcg said:

Deleted_User said:

masonic said:

colsten said:

OP has apparently raised it with the FCA. Who will no doubt imminently request all banks to immediately get working on an enhancement to their systems.

Hmm, ok. Not the bank itself then...

Yes, of course I have raised it with the banks themselves. Until I mentioned, it to them many frontline staff weren't aware of the problem but, after explaining it, agree with me that it would be a worthwhile improvement and probably assist anti fraud measures. They suggest if sufficient customers requested the enhancement, it's likely that the banks will consider scheduling it in.

With your extensive experience of IT, I'm surprised that you still expect that banks will be prepared to make any changes to their systems other than those mandated by legislation/regulation or which the banks believe will give them a commercial advantage. 

There is no question that banks are businesses. Having been in business myself as a director of a company I can assure you that any business which wants to do well will listen to its customers. Those who don't are likely suffer the consequences. I was one of the IT team who around 40-odd years ago (well before the digital age) designed the very first computerisation of Natwest Bank savings accounts. Design of its facilities was very much focused on making things easy for customers and staff who Natwest consulted.

I'm fascinated by your suggestion that banks will usually only implement features "mandated by legislation/regulation". True, my suggestion of payees having an optional description/nickname field is not a mandatory regulation, but many banks have already implemented it (see details posted elsewhere in this discussion). Why do you think they did it? Because it's a sensible feature to properly implement CoP and help prevent money transfers going astray. The frontline staff of Santander and Halifax have agreed with me it's a useful feature and suggested customers consider requesting it be implemented.

I find your paragraph on TSB particularly interesting and let me tell you why. Although I don't bank with Lloyds but with Halifax (part of the Lloyds group) and evidently Lloyds don't have the optional description/nickname field which I've requested since Halifax doesn't have it. However the TSB redesigned system does include the new feature (unlike Halifax/Lloyds) where payees have the optional description/nickname field. So, regardless of the criticism TSB may have suffered over the changeover period their team was smart enough to realise this feature should be included as part of CoP.

I don't agree with your suggestion that my only solution is to go through the massive hassle of loosing all the advantages I have gained with Santander (eg being a Select Customer) & Halifax over 40 years and chicken out to another bank. If all customers took a similar route instead of lobbying their banks to improve the service, our banking system would be in a sorry state.

Err, what?

If all customers voted with their feet over issues banks would have to start looking at implementing the features the customers want, or else risk having no customers.

If all customers voted with their feet over issues banks would have to start looking at implementing the features the customers want, or else risk having no customers.

I presume you've never run any successful commercial business. Most normal businesses speak to and listen to their customers regularly and ask for their opinions about service before the customers walk out by which time it can be too late to save the business.

For years as a customer I have been dealing with hundreds of business including banks. I have during that time made suggestions for improvements to their service which matched what other said. I did this without threatening to walk out and often found the business willing to listen to their customers and implement the changes. Indeed I am member of the customer panel of several financial institutions and there, together with other customers we are listened to and they agree to many of our suggestions. I think abruptly voting with your feet before even discussing suggestions for improvements is a ridiculous way of working.

No, but I've worked for a bank.  They don't give two hoots about what any individual customer thinks, especially when said customer isn't going to go anywhere when they don't get what they want.

It's very clear the staff you spoke to were just blowing smoke up the proverbial, but you've been fooled into thinking they actually care.  I can assure you they don't.  And the bank as a whole will not care as long as you keep doing business with them.  Why would they?  They can keep you as a customer, keep making money off you and not have to pay to implement your suggestion.  So why are they going to fork out money for something that they don't need to fork it out for?

Whilst it might be sensible to avoid customers walking out before you start doing anything, if customers aren't going to walk out (and it's clear you won't) then what incentive is there to do anything?

eskbanker

Deleted_User said:

Please read what I said:

"... payees having an optional description/nickname field is not a mandatory regulation"

note the word not!

So I repeat, even though it is not mandatory as part of the CoP system to include this extra field, for me as a customer of banks who do not have that optional field, I am unable to benefit from the CoP system when setting up a payee.

This is obviously all getting somewhat circular but you still seem to be struggling to get to grips with the concept that nicknames aren't "part of the CoP system", mandatory or optional!  They're a separate facility that some banks chose to implement (independently), which happen to be useful when CoP was introduced later.

Deleted_User said:
if the bank had what I term "properly implemented CoP" (yes, I know this is not a legal requirement) and provided me the nickname field....

There's obviously nothing stopping you from inventing your own arbitrary definition of what constitutes a 'proper' CoP implementation but it's hardly reasonable to castigate banks for not complying with it!

Deleted_User said:

So, as far as I am concerned, unless the bank makes the "nickname" field available to me, I will never be able to benefit from CoP.

Ultimately, yes, for those that don't offer nicknames, you're left with a choice between using CoP or using nicknames (whichever you deem more beneficial to you), unless you adopt the approach suggested by another poster earlier of initially validating accounts with CoP and then going back and editing the payee name to use your preferred unique nickname.

EssexExile

I can see why eskbanker has that profile picture, I feel the same way!

eskbanker

Deleted_User said:
1 What part of:

"... payees having an optional description/nickname field is not a mandatory regulation"

note the word not!

do you not understand? Is that statement not clear to you?

I wasn't commenting on that statement, although should perhaps have edited it out of the quote.  It's obviously clear and uncontentious - you were told this by your banks and I concurred in the very first reply at the start of the thread!

Deleted_User said:
2 What part of:

... even though it is not mandatory as part of the CoP system to include this extra field, for me as a customer of banks who do not have that optional field, prevent me from benefiting from the CoP system when setting up a new payee.

do you not understand?

It's not an issue of understanding - you're apparently seeking to imply that nicknames should be considered as part of CoP, when they're not within its scope.  The bolded wording is a bit ambiguous but your repeated references to 'properly' implementing CoP make it clear that you see nicknames as part of it, which is why I'm trying to explain that they're not.

Deleted_User said:

I repeat and summarise yet again:

Unless the bank offers me an optional description/nickname, as far as I personally am concerned without that description/nickname field their implementation, CoP is of no use to me. Even though the bank may not have broken any law or regulations, for me that prevents me from taking advantage of CoP. Under those circumstances I have to go back to the £1 initial payment pantomime as my alternative to the CoP system for checking that I have generated the payee with the correct details.

So in respect of my Santander & Halifax bank accounts, their implementation of CoP does nothing for me and leaves me exactly as I was before CoP was introduced viz having to play the £1 initial payment pantomime.

Is there any part of that you do not understand?

Again I'm not the one struggling to understand - I pointed out to you earlier that you're no further forward or backward with Santander and Halifax, although you've chosen not to address the workaround suggested above....

eskbanker

Deleted_User said:

eskbanker said:

... unless you adopt the approach suggested by another poster earlier of initially validating accounts with CoP and then going back and editing the payee name to use your preferred unique nickname.

On my Santander & Halifax accounts, once I have set up my payees and created a payment I cannot go back later to edit them. If I want to change the details I have to delete the payees and set them up from scratch.

Out of curiosity, I just tried it on my Santander account online banking (I don't have a Halifax account) and the workaround works fine, as long as you edit the name before creating the payment, i.e. use CoP to validate the payee and then choose a nickname, before proceeding to make the first payment.  Job done - no sweat....