Banks to be fined if they fail to provide free access to cash under new laws

MSE_Molly_G

Banks and building societies will face fines if they fail to protect consumers' free access to cash under new powers being given to the financial regulator. 

Banks to be fined if they fail to provide free access to cash under new laws – here's what's happening

If you haven't already, join the forum to reply.

adamp87

Basically does it mean, more cash points provided by banks directly in an area? So in the 3 mile radius for example, they (or combined) pay for a cash point to be installed or some access somehow?

I was thinking perhaps it’s not so easy somewhere like the highlands but then again that’s probably been an issue solved years before now 

eskbanker

adamp87 said:

Basically does it mean, more cash points provided by banks directly in an area? So in the 3 mile radius for example, they (or combined) pay for a cash point to be installed or some access somehow?

I was thinking perhaps it’s not so easy somewhere like the highlands but then again that’s probably been an issue solved years before now 

No, it doesn't mean any obligation to open any more facilities, it's just about preserving some form of access to cash when closing branches.

Brie

I think there will remain areas where 3 miles cannot be practical as already pointed out - in the highlands and other remote locations.  

What will remain allusive is coins.  ATMs are fine for notes (as long as the ATM is functional of course) but I've not seen any that provide coins which some of us require for certain things.  Country food sales where eggs are on sale at a farmer's gate for instance.  I can't imagine the farmer will be too happy making change for the £20 notes that one predominately gets from ATMs.  

And there's the comment about post offices providing a way of depositing and withdrawing money.  Well yes and no.  I've yet to see a post office that will let me deposit a random amount of coins into my account.  And not all accounts can be accessed from a post office even assuming it's a post office that offers money services.  

What also continues to astonish me is the lack of ATMs that will accept deposits.  I know of 1 bank branch locally that has an ATM that will accept coins and notes.  And this is in an urban area of about 300k people.  Other countries where I have lived and travelled have had these ATMs since the 80s so I'm not sure what the problem is with using them in the UK.

la531983

Brie said:

I think there will remain areas where 3 miles cannot be practical as already pointed out - in the highlands and other remote locations.  

What will remain allusive is coins.  ATMs are fine for notes (as long as the ATM is functional of course) but I've not seen any that provide coins which some of us require for certain things.  Country food sales where eggs are on sale at a farmer's gate for instance.  I can't imagine the farmer will be too happy making change for the £20 notes that one predominately gets from ATMs.  

And there's the comment about post offices providing a way of depositing and withdrawing money.  Well yes and no.  I've yet to see a post office that will let me deposit a random amount of coins into my account.  And not all accounts can be accessed from a post office even assuming it's a post office that offers money services.  

What also continues to astonish me is the lack of ATMs that will accept deposits.  I know of 1 bank branch locally that has an ATM that will accept coins and notes.  And this is in an urban area of about 300k people.  Other countries where I have lived and travelled have had these ATMs since the 80s so I'm not sure what the problem is with using them in the UK.

The Halifax used to have external cash machines that used to spit out envelopes and let you deposit cash. These have seemingly vanished too. 

MattMattMattUK

It seems a bit excessive to add additional costs and pass them on to the rest of us. It would make far more sense to spend it on education for those who cannot use the systems required and expand access for everyone, rather than spend money on preserving a dying and no longer needed payment method.

Zanderman

MattMattMattUK said:

It seems a bit excessive to add additional costs and pass them on to the rest of us. It would make far more sense to spend it on education for those who cannot use the systems required and expand access for everyone, rather than spend money on preserving a dying and no longer needed payment method.

But it's not dead and (clearly!) it is still needed by many. And probably will be for some time to come.

eskbanker

MattMattMattUK said:

It seems a bit excessive to add additional costs and pass them on to the rest of us. It would make far more sense to spend it on education for those who cannot use the systems required and expand access for everyone, rather than spend money on preserving a dying and no longer needed payment method.

As above, they're not looking to add additional costs, the expectation is simply that when closing branches, some sort of cash access facility is retained.  Banks have been making commercial decisions to close branches, which is fair enough IMHO, but equally it's not unreasonable for the regulator to impose some conditions around that in order to protect consumer rights, otherwise, as pointed out in today's statement:

Given the overall reduction in cash use experienced in the UK, in the absence of government intervention the provision of services to access cash may decline in a disorderly way which is detrimental to users

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cash-access-policy-statement/cash-access-policy-statement

There's no dispute that cash usage is declining, but there is no appetite within government to seek to eradicate it, and hence the existence of this policy and the associated legislation!

MattMattMattUK

Zanderman said:

MattMattMattUK said:

It seems a bit excessive to add additional costs and pass them on to the rest of us. It would make far more sense to spend it on education for those who cannot use the systems required and expand access for everyone, rather than spend money on preserving a dying and no longer needed payment method.

But it's not dead

You will note that I did not say dead, but dying, an obvious difference that you chose to deliberately misrepresent. 

Zanderman said:
and (clearly!) it is still needed by many. And probably will be for some time to come.

It is not clearly needed by many though, want and need are not the same thing. Many of the refusnics could easily function without cash, there will be a very limited number who will need assistance to transition, supplying that assistance would be far cheaper than dragging out the death of cash. 

eskbanker said:

MattMattMattUK said:

It seems a bit excessive to add additional costs and pass them on to the rest of us. It would make far more sense to spend it on education for those who cannot use the systems required and expand access for everyone, rather than spend money on preserving a dying and no longer needed payment method.

As above, they're not looking to add additional costs, the expectation is simply that when closing branches, some sort of cash access facility is retained.  Banks have been making commercial decisions to close branches, which is fair enough IMHO, but equally it's not unreasonable for the regulator to impose some conditions around that in order to protect consumer rights, otherwise, as pointed out in today's statement:

That still means additional costs, stopping a business reducing unneeded coats and making them pass those costs on to customers is an additional cost.

eskbanker said:

Given the overall reduction in cash use experienced in the UK, in the absence of government intervention the provision of services to access cash may decline in a disorderly way which is detrimental to users

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cash-access-policy-statement/cash-access-policy-statement

There's no dispute that cash usage is declining, but there is no appetite within government to seek to eradicate it, and hence the existence of this policy and the associated legislation!

It would make more sense for the government to intervene to allow the managed decline of cash, rather than putting the cash supply system on an expensive life support system. The government does not to seek to eradicate it, it just needs to let it decline naturally, rather than forcing businesses to keep accepting it.

eskbanker

MattMattMattUK said:

eskbanker said:

MattMattMattUK said:

It seems a bit excessive to add additional costs and pass them on to the rest of us. It would make far more sense to spend it on education for those who cannot use the systems required and expand access for everyone, rather than spend money on preserving a dying and no longer needed payment method.

As above, they're not looking to add additional costs, the expectation is simply that when closing branches, some sort of cash access facility is retained.  Banks have been making commercial decisions to close branches, which is fair enough IMHO, but equally it's not unreasonable for the regulator to impose some conditions around that in order to protect consumer rights, otherwise, as pointed out in today's statement:

That still means additional costs, stopping a business reducing unneeded coats and making them pass those costs on to customers is an additional cost.

Perhaps just semantics then but to me introducing new rules that constrain banks' ability to reduce costs aren't really the same thing as adding additional costs, i.e. they're not being asked/told to increase their current cost base!

MattMattMattUK said:

eskbanker said:

Given the overall reduction in cash use experienced in the UK, in the absence of government intervention the provision of services to access cash may decline in a disorderly way which is detrimental to users

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cash-access-policy-statement/cash-access-policy-statement

There's no dispute that cash usage is declining, but there is no appetite within government to seek to eradicate it, and hence the existence of this policy and the associated legislation!

It would make more sense for the government to intervene to allow the managed decline of cash, rather than putting the cash supply system on an expensive life support system. The government does not to seek to eradicate it, it just needs to let it decline naturally, rather than forcing businesses to keep accepting it.

Is the government forcing businesses to keep accepting cash?  This policy is all about the supply side, i.e. ensuring cash is available to those who want/need it, but I'm not aware of anything forcing businesses to keep accepting it? 

MattMattMattUK

eskbanker said:

MattMattMattUK said:

eskbanker said:

MattMattMattUK said:

It seems a bit excessive to add additional costs and pass them on to the rest of us. It would make far more sense to spend it on education for those who cannot use the systems required and expand access for everyone, rather than spend money on preserving a dying and no longer needed payment method.

As above, they're not looking to add additional costs, the expectation is simply that when closing branches, some sort of cash access facility is retained.  Banks have been making commercial decisions to close branches, which is fair enough IMHO, but equally it's not unreasonable for the regulator to impose some conditions around that in order to protect consumer rights, otherwise, as pointed out in today's statement:

That still means additional costs, stopping a business reducing unneeded coats and making them pass those costs on to customers is an additional cost.

Perhaps just semantics then but to me introducing new rules that constrain banks' ability to reduce costs aren't really the same thing as adding additional costs, i.e. they're not being asked/told to increase their current cost base!

I would say yes, semantics. Previously the cost of the provision was a worthwhile business expense, but it no longer it is artificially increasing business costs, which penalises other customers.

eskbanker said:

MattMattMattUK said:

eskbanker said:

Given the overall reduction in cash use experienced in the UK, in the absence of government intervention the provision of services to access cash may decline in a disorderly way which is detrimental to users

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cash-access-policy-statement/cash-access-policy-statement

There's no dispute that cash usage is declining, but there is no appetite within government to seek to eradicate it, and hence the existence of this policy and the associated legislation!

It would make more sense for the government to intervene to allow the managed decline of cash, rather than putting the cash supply system on an expensive life support system. The government does not to seek to eradicate it, it just needs to let it decline naturally, rather than forcing businesses to keep accepting it.

Is the government forcing businesses to keep accepting cash?  This policy is all about the supply side, i.e. ensuring cash is available to those who want/need it, but I'm not aware of anything forcing businesses to keep accepting it? 

It is forcing banks to accept cash being paid in, as well as provisioning cashpoints for withdrawal, the former is even more expensive than the latter.