Bank practices or branch practices that have ceased....

SandyShores

Rob5342 said:

gsmh said:

Having to visit a branch in your lunch hour and not having time to eat lunch because it took so long. 

Indeed. Branch banking was so inconvenient that it's a hard to imagine how we managed lookung back. 

That sinking feeling when you rushed into the branch on your lunch break after doing some shopping to find the longest queue ever.  In the winter it was so hot and you were juggling your bags, coat, umbrella for what seemed like ages and wondering if you would get served or whether you would have to go back to work without getting served because flexible working wasn't a thing back then.  Oh and trying to write out the paying in slip or whatever on the little long table thingy alongside the queue so that you didn't have to do it before you joined the queue.

Rob5342

horsewithnoname said:

Not having to “prove it’s me” every bloody second of the day. 

Being able to spend my own money without the Spanish Inquisition. Everything is such a faff these days. 

It's not really a faff compared to how things used to be. Most transfers go through ok, if they are queried then it takes what, 10 minutes to phone and verify it? Compare that to how things used to be when a transfer could take over a week with cheque clearing times, traipsing to the bank etc and it's still far less faff.

BlueonBlue

The fact they are closing all the branches is a major PIA .

eskbanker

BlueonBlue said:

The fact they are closing all the branches is a major PIA .

It's not a fact that 'they' are closing 'all' the branches, but most institutions with branches have closed quite a few....

gsmh

BlueonBlue said:

The fact they are closing all the branches is a major PIA .

It’s interesting that three top rated banks have no branches at all - First Direct, Monzo and Starling. I think that speaks volumes about the supposed need for branches. All my life when I’ve walked into palatial branches and witnessed people queuing to do things they could have done by other means I’ve questioned the need for them. Some of them must have cost an absolute fortune to run - just for the Luddites who dislike change.

eskbanker

gsmh said:
All my life when I’ve walked into palatial branches and witnessed people queuing to do things they could have done by other means I’ve questioned the need for them.

What were you in there for?

BlueonBlue

The amount of branches that have closed is monumental with more to close .

So much for customer service ...

Banks will do anything to profit if you look back through banking history it speaks for itself .

eskbanker

Putting the hyperbole to one side, yes, it's reported that 63% of branches open ten years ago have been closed, with another 116 already earmarked to join them this year:

https://www.which.co.uk/money/banking/switching-your-bank/bank-branch-closures-is-your-local-bank-closing-ayYyu4i9RdHy

Rob5342

It's surprsing that there are still so many open really given how establised internet and app banking is now.

booneruk

BlueonBlue said:

The amount of branches that have closed is monumental with more to close .

So much for customer service ...

Banks will do anything to profit if you look back through banking history it speaks for itself .

But then how much did their digital presences cost to implement and then maintain? Are bricks and mortar or digital means of access more popular? Where should they invest?