Santander - New UI for paying existing payee

eskbanker

Deleted_User said:

I would also welcome if CoP was enhanced to cover more UK bank accounts. For example, where the receiving account currently requires the use of Reference field to identify it, I would like CoP to be enhanced to have another field (might be called account2) to include such accounts. This would mean the Reference field no longer being used for that purpose thus enabling customers to enter whatever they like into the Reference field.

As highlighted in one of the previous interminable threads on this subject, plans are afoot to refine the CoP protocol and to extend its use to organisations requiring "Secondary Reference Data (SRD). This is information other than a sort code and account number that allows for account identification":

https://www.psr.org.uk/media/a41lz5ol/psr-cp-21-11-cop-dual-running-december-2021.pdf

EarthBoy

Deleted User said:

Deleted_User said:

Daliah said:

Deleted_User said:

Are you planning to lobby Santander to remove that feature for business customers as you appear to prefer CoP is bypassed and fake Payee names continue to be used?

Why would I do any of this? Where have I said CoP should be bypassed? 

For decades prior to the introduction of CoP I have frequently been putting different Payee Names on my payments list in order to help indicate which account the payment is going to. It required the use of what I call the "£1 initial payment pantomime" to verify that my payment was going to the correct account. Therefore I welcomed the introduction of CoP to confirm that the payee name is correct thus potentially enabling me to pay the full amount rather than needing the "£1 initial payment pantomime" to verify the payee. Unfortunately, without an optional nickname field, I'm often still having to perform the "£1 initial payment pantomime". You have given no reason for your objection to an optional nickname field (which we're told is already available to Sander business account holders). Why are you unwilling to have an optional nickname field (which you are not obliged to use) to assist customers in  distinguishing between different payees?

I would also welcome if CoP was enhanced to cover more UK bank accounts. For example, where the receiving account currently requires the use of Reference field to identify it, I would like CoP to be enhanced to have another field (might be called account2) to include such accounts. This would mean the Reference field no longer being used for that purpose thus enabling customers to enter whatever they like into the Reference field.

Or those tiny minority of account providers could just switch to industry standard account numbers and use the CoP facility as is?

This would be the best and easiest solution. Nottingham Building Society changed over to the standard system many years ago now, so they don't need you to use a separate account number in the reference. If the Nottingham can do it, so can all the others. 

eskbanker

EarthBoy said:

Deleted User said:

Or those tiny minority of account providers could just switch to industry standard account numbers and use the CoP facility as is?

This would be the best and easiest solution. Nottingham Building Society changed over to the standard system many years ago now, so they don't need you to use a separate account number in the reference. If the Nottingham can do it, so can all the others. 

'Best' from the customer's perspective, in the sense that this would keep things simple, but unlikely to be the 'easiest', in terms of the time and money required for the institution to make it happen, otherwise it would have been done long ago by now.

The fact that one of the more significant building societies (48 branches) had the resources to commit to this doesn't signify that all the smaller ones (some with only one branch) were/are in a position to do so, never mind all the credit unions, etc - these may be a 'tiny minority' in terms of collective scale, as measured by total funds on deposit, etc, but they'll probably be the majority in terms of actual number of institutions....

Thrugelmir

Deleted User said:

Deleted_User said:

AlwaysLearnin said:

I regularly change the reference field for one of my payees (to quote an invoice reference) when making a payment via the app.  The most recent reference is retained/shown in the payee list.

For some payees the Reference field may have a mandatory code in it to enable the payment to reach the correct account. Under those circumstances you can't then alter the contents to hold an invoice number or anything else. This is where it will be useful to have an optional field for you to enter that information

In these cases, the Building Society has opted to have account numbers that don't conform to industry standards i.e. eight digits along with a six digit sort code. 

Building societies operate outside the clearing bank system. Always have done. However they will use a clearing bank themselves to process transactions. 

EarthBoy

eskbanker said:

EarthBoy said:

Deleted User said:

Or those tiny minority of account providers could just switch to industry standard account numbers and use the CoP facility as is?

This would be the best and easiest solution. Nottingham Building Society changed over to the standard system many years ago now, so they don't need you to use a separate account number in the reference. If the Nottingham can do it, so can all the others. 

'Best' from the customer's perspective, in the sense that this would keep things simple, but unlikely to be the 'easiest', in terms of the time and money required for the institution to make it happen, otherwise it would have been done long ago by now.

The fact that one of the more significant building societies (48 branches) had the resources to commit to this doesn't signify that all the smaller ones (some with only one branch) were/are in a position to do so, never mind all the credit unions, etc - these may be a 'tiny minority' in terms of collective scale, as measured by total funds on deposit, etc, but they'll probably be the majority in terms of actual number of institutions....

I take your point about the smaller building societies not being able to do it, but if the Nottingham, the 9th largest, can do it, there shouldn't be any reason why the 2nd and 3rd largest, the Coventry and the Yorkshire, can't do it as well.  Even the Nationwide still makes you use a separate account number in the reference field for paying into some of their savings accounts, and they belong to the clearing system! 

RG2015

EarthBoy said:

eskbanker said:

EarthBoy said:

Deleted User said:

Or those tiny minority of account providers could just switch to industry standard account numbers and use the CoP facility as is?

This would be the best and easiest solution. Nottingham Building Society changed over to the standard system many years ago now, so they don't need you to use a separate account number in the reference. If the Nottingham can do it, so can all the others. 

'Best' from the customer's perspective, in the sense that this would keep things simple, but unlikely to be the 'easiest', in terms of the time and money required for the institution to make it happen, otherwise it would have been done long ago by now.

The fact that one of the more significant building societies (48 branches) had the resources to commit to this doesn't signify that all the smaller ones (some with only one branch) were/are in a position to do so, never mind all the credit unions, etc - these may be a 'tiny minority' in terms of collective scale, as measured by total funds on deposit, etc, but they'll probably be the majority in terms of actual number of institutions....

I take your point about the smaller building societies not being able to do it, but if the Nottingham, the 9th largest, can do it, there shouldn't be any reason why the 2nd and 3rd largest, the Coventry and the Yorkshire, can't do it as well.  Even the Nationwide still makes you use a separate account number in the reference field for paying into some of their savings accounts, and they belong to the clearing system! 

Why would they want to? They would have to spend money updating their systems.

If they are happy with their current business model, customer base and profitability, then there is no reason to change anything. 

EarthBoy

Deleted_User said:

RG2015 said:

EarthBoy said:

eskbanker said:

EarthBoy said:

Deleted User said:

Or those tiny minority of account providers could just switch to industry standard account numbers and use the CoP facility as is?

This would be the best and easiest solution. Nottingham Building Society changed over to the standard system many years ago now, so they don't need you to use a separate account number in the reference. If the Nottingham can do it, so can all the others. 

'Best' from the customer's perspective, in the sense that this would keep things simple, but unlikely to be the 'easiest', in terms of the time and money required for the institution to make it happen, otherwise it would have been done long ago by now.

The fact that one of the more significant building societies (48 branches) had the resources to commit to this doesn't signify that all the smaller ones (some with only one branch) were/are in a position to do so, never mind all the credit unions, etc - these may be a 'tiny minority' in terms of collective scale, as measured by total funds on deposit, etc, but they'll probably be the majority in terms of actual number of institutions....

I take your point about the smaller building societies not being able to do it, but if the Nottingham, the 9th largest, can do it, there shouldn't be any reason why the 2nd and 3rd largest, the Coventry and the Yorkshire, can't do it as well.  Even the Nationwide still makes you use a separate account number in the reference field for paying into some of their savings accounts, and they belong to the clearing system! 

Why would they want to? They would have to spend money updating their systems.

If they are happy with their current business model, customer base and profitability, then there is no reason to change anything. 

I totally agree with you and do not understand why some here want Building Societies to spend a huge amount of resources for no good reason.

Why should Santander, and other banks, spend a lot of money on changing their systems to include a nickname, just to suit a tiny number of customers?

"If they are happy with their current business model, customer base and profitability, then there is no reason to change anything." A statement you have just agreed with!

Frogletina

I have not tried this myself, but I'm sure I read that someone on MSE uses the CoP to identify that they have the correct account and once confirmed they amend the payee to the name that they want to use.

RG2015

Frogletina said:

I have not tried this myself, but I'm sure I read that someone on MSE uses the CoP to identify that they have the correct account and once confirmed they amend the payee to the name that they want to use.

I cannot comment on Santander but NatWest allow this. In fact, once an account name has been verified, you are asked what name you would like to give the account.

EarthBoy

Frogletina said:

I have not tried this myself, but I'm sure I read that someone on MSE uses the CoP to identify that they have the correct account and once confirmed they amend the payee to the name that they want to use.

Yes, that's me, and I'm sure others do the same.  It gives you the best of both worlds, -the assurance that you're paying to the correct account plus the convenience of your preferred identifier as the payee name.