Barclays to close 15 more bank branches this year - here's the full list, plus alternatives

IanManc

TheBanker said:

Who are these people that 'need' branches? 

Taking the first branch on the Barclays closure list - Alnwick - Barclays say only 15 customers use this branch regularly as the only way to do their banking. It is simply not viable to pay a lease on a building, maintenance and utility costs, staff costs and insurance for such a small number of people. Especially when the vast majority of transactions can be done another way (and if people don't want to use online services, they can use the phone). If the cost of running the branch was apportioned to the customers who 'need' to use it and charged to their accounts as a monthly fee, they would soon find another way to bank!

When my local suburban - and very busy - branch of Barclays was closing a few years ago, I asked the manager, who was being made redundant in his mid-forties, how Barclays came up with their ludicrously low figures for people who "regularly" use the branch as "the only way to do their banking". 

He explained that if a customer, during the life of their accounts, had ever once done a transaction at another branch, such as popping in to pay a cheque or get cash from a counter or indoor machine at a city centre branch while on a shopping trip; or had once  ever phoned telephone banking; or had ever logged into their account online, then they could never count towards the number that Barclays quoted. That's how Barclays had managed to produce figures that showed only 8 people used his branch regularly as the only way to do their banking. 

Seeing the branch was busy all day every day and always had long queues every lunch time, I said it looked like Barclays were massaging the figures. He said they weren't, they were lying.

As it happens I know Alnwick well. It is a market town serving a huge area of Northumberland, and the bank is busy, especially on Thursday which is market day. The next nearest branch is Seahouses, which Barclays have been closing by a thousand cuts for years, and which now is only open for 15 hours a week, across three days, Seahouses is on the closure list too.

When both have gone then Barclays customers will face a 46 mile round trip to Cramlington. In a rural area with poor public transport. That's almost insurmountable for some. Seeing the branch is busy there is clearly a demand from many people for its services, but the sort of person who contemptuously posts things like "Who are these people who 'need' branches?" won't care about them, so that's alright then.

TheBanker

IanManc said:

TheBanker said:

Who are these people that 'need' branches? 

Taking the first branch on the Barclays closure list - Alnwick - Barclays say only 15 customers use this branch regularly as the only way to do their banking. It is simply not viable to pay a lease on a building, maintenance and utility costs, staff costs and insurance for such a small number of people. Especially when the vast majority of transactions can be done another way (and if people don't want to use online services, they can use the phone). If the cost of running the branch was apportioned to the customers who 'need' to use it and charged to their accounts as a monthly fee, they would soon find another way to bank!

When my local suburban - and very busy - branch of Barclays was closing a few years ago, I asked the manager, who was being made redundant in his mid-forties, how Barclays came up with their ludicrously low figures for people who "regularly" use the branch as "the only way to do their banking". 

He explained that if a customer, during the life of their accounts, had ever once done a transaction at another branch, such as popping in to pay a cheque or get cash from a counter or indoor machine at a city centre branch while on a shopping trip; or had once  ever phoned telephone banking; or had ever logged into their account online, then they could never count towards the number that Barclays quoted. That's how Barclays had managed to produce figures that showed only 8 people used his branch regularly as the only way to do their banking. 

Seeing the branch was busy all day every day and always had long queues every lunch time, I said it looked like Barclays were massaging the figures. He said they weren't, they were lying.

As it happens I know Alnwick well. It is a market town serving a huge area of Northumberland, and the bank is busy, especially on Thursday which is market day. The next nearest branch is Seahouses, which Barclays have been closing by a thousand cuts for years, and which now is only open for 15 hours a week, across three days, Seahouses is on the closure list too.

When both have gone then Barclays customers will face a 46 mile round trip to Cramlington. In a rural area with poor public transport. That's almost insurmountable for some. Seeing the branch is busy there is clearly a demand from many people for its services, but the sort of person who contemptuously posts things like "Who are these people who 'need' branches?" won't care about them, so that's alright then.

I started my career in a bank branch 20 years ago (now closed and converted into a hairdresser). Even then, the vast majority of transactions didn't need to be done in person, they could be done by phone or at an ATM. And of course far more people have access to technology now, and online/mobile banking allows you to do far more than you used to be able to. 

I appreciate that there are some circumstances (such as the person with Dementia mentioned up thread) where visiting a bank in person, with a carer, is the only practical way to resolve an issue. For these customers the shared bank hubs, or 'pop-up
 banks that are being introduced should meet their needs. It would, however, be helpful if the new services could be introduced before the branch closes rather than after. 

I'm simply highlighting the need to look at this from the bank's commercial viewpoint. If you head over to the Savings board, you'll see that the best paying accounts are generally offered by banks that don't have branches. These banks have a far lower cost base which is one reason why they can offer more competitive rates. It's just not viable to keep an extensive branch network operating for the small number of customers who need to transact in person. 

NB - my mum's in her 70s and doesn't own a computer or a smartphone. Her local bank is still open but the last time she went in was before the pandemic to deposit a cheque. She doesn't need to use the branch - any cash she needs is withdrawn from the ATM at the supermarket while she's shopping. If she needs to cancel direct debits or make payments she uses telephone banking. Even if she gets another cheque, she doesn't need the branch as she can use the Post Office, or send it through the post. I mention this because I think there's a perception that there are loads of elderly people who are excluded from banking due to not being comfortable with technology - but the choice isn't simply between a branch or a mobile app - there are other ways to bank which will work for the majority.

gary1312

IanManc said:

TheBanker said:

Who are these people that 'need' branches? 

Taking the first branch on the Barclays closure list - Alnwick - Barclays say only 15 customers use this branch regularly as the only way to do their banking. It is simply not viable to pay a lease on a building, maintenance and utility costs, staff costs and insurance for such a small number of people. Especially when the vast majority of transactions can be done another way (and if people don't want to use online services, they can use the phone). If the cost of running the branch was apportioned to the customers who 'need' to use it and charged to their accounts as a monthly fee, they would soon find another way to bank!

When my local suburban - and very busy - branch of Barclays was closing a few years ago, I asked the manager, who was being made redundant in his mid-forties, how Barclays came up with their ludicrously low figures for people who "regularly" use the branch as "the only way to do their banking". 

He explained that if a customer, during the life of their accounts, had ever once done a transaction at another branch, such as popping in to pay a cheque or get cash from a counter or indoor machine at a city centre branch while on a shopping trip; or had once  ever phoned telephone banking; or had ever logged into their account online, then they could never count towards the number that Barclays quoted. That's how Barclays had managed to produce figures that showed only 8 people used his branch regularly as the only way to do their banking. 

I'm pretty sure I read, on the RBS Child & Co branch closure factsheet that the branch had about half a dozen regular users and was wondering how on Earth a London branch could have so few customers. Your post, albeit about a different bank, gives a few clues as to how they may have arrived at those figures!