Lloyds Close More Branches While Their Online Banking Fails

Stargunner

karvala said:

etienneg said:

karvala said:

 - and I remember some of the more spectacular banking failures of recent years such as the TSB outage that lasted for days (and weeks for some customers).  If there were no branches, what were their customers supposed to do?

The general wisdom is to have a second account available for such an eventuality - rather like carrying a spare wheel in your car. There are often simple things people can do to help themselves.

Right, so we need to open, administer and keep funds in two different bank accounts because the banks want to close their branches while being unable to offer reliable technology to replace it?  You seriously regard this as a reasonable solution?  It's not like carrying a spare wheel - that is a solution provided by the manufacturer of the car to replace functionality when their equipment fails.  Banking equivalent?  Keeping your branch open.  What you're suggesting is buying a second car for the times that the first fails to work as advertised.  That's not something I would do.

Are you not familiar with the phrase ‘’Don’t put all your eggs in one basket’’

karvala

Stargunner said:

karvala said:

etienneg said:

karvala said:

 - and I remember some of the more spectacular banking failures of recent years such as the TSB outage that lasted for days (and weeks for some customers).  If there were no branches, what were their customers supposed to do?

The general wisdom is to have a second account available for such an eventuality - rather like carrying a spare wheel in your car. There are often simple things people can do to help themselves.

Right, so we need to open, administer and keep funds in two different bank accounts because the banks want to close their branches while being unable to offer reliable technology to replace it?  You seriously regard this as a reasonable solution?  It's not like carrying a spare wheel - that is a solution provided by the manufacturer of the car to replace functionality when their equipment fails.  Banking equivalent?  Keeping your branch open.  What you're suggesting is buying a second car for the times that the first fails to work as advertised.  That's not something I would do.

Are you not familiar with the phrase ‘’Don’t put all your eggs in one basket’’

Yes, it's a phrase I believe the banks should take note of when deciding to put all their eggs in the online banking basket by closing branches.

Rob5342

karvala said:

For those who are convinced that the technology is super reliable, here we are again: Barclays hit by major IT outage, customers unable to make or receive payments.  

Meanwhile, I was on the phone to Halifax yesterday about insurance and their internal systems were down again; the representative had to phone me two hours later once they were back up.

This technolgoy is simply not reliable for such a critical function and backup systems - such as branches - must remain in place.

That story says that card payments are affected too, and with Halifax a branch would use the same computer system so would still be inaccesible. A branch wouldn't avoid that, and instead of just phoning back later when things were running again you'd have all the cost and hassle of travelling back to the branch.

Rob5342

karvala said:

etienneg said:

karvala said:

 - and I remember some of the more spectacular banking failures of recent years such as the TSB outage that lasted for days (and weeks for some customers).  If there were no branches, what were their customers supposed to do?

The general wisdom is to have a second account available for such an eventuality - rather like carrying a spare wheel in your car. There are often simple things people can do to help themselves.

Right, so we need to open, administer and keep funds in two different bank accounts because the banks want to close their branches while being unable to offer reliable technology to replace it?  You seriously regard this as a reasonable solution?  It's not like carrying a spare wheel - that is a solution provided by the manufacturer of the car to replace functionality when their equipment fails.  Banking equivalent?  Keeping your branch open.  What you're suggesting is buying a second car for the times that the first fails to work as advertised.  That's not something I would do.

It's hardly any effort, once you've opened an account and installed the app it just takes a finderprint to see the balance. Branches still rely on the central computer system so if that fails everything will be affected. A bank having a branch is like you buying a second car for the time when the first one fails, a massive cost for somethng that's virtually never used.

Stargunner

karvala said:

Stargunner said:

karvala said:

etienneg said:

karvala said:

 - and I remember some of the more spectacular banking failures of recent years such as the TSB outage that lasted for days (and weeks for some customers).  If there were no branches, what were their customers supposed to do?

The general wisdom is to have a second account available for such an eventuality - rather like carrying a spare wheel in your car. There are often simple things people can do to help themselves.

Right, so we need to open, administer and keep funds in two different bank accounts because the banks want to close their branches while being unable to offer reliable technology to replace it?  You seriously regard this as a reasonable solution?  It's not like carrying a spare wheel - that is a solution provided by the manufacturer of the car to replace functionality when their equipment fails.  Banking equivalent?  Keeping your branch open.  What you're suggesting is buying a second car for the times that the first fails to work as advertised.  That's not something I would do.

Are you not familiar with the phrase ‘’Don’t put all your eggs in one basket’’

Yes, it's a phrase I believe the banks should take note of when deciding to put all their eggs in the online banking basket by closing branches.

They still have lots of branches open. If you really need to visit one, it just means that you may have to travel a little further.

Things don’t stay the same forever.

Theleak250

I think some people operate in a dreamland  where captain Mainwaring is at their local branch, counting the money in their account and filling in the ledger. In reality the bank staff use the same systems you do when you use the app, pretty much. 

The future is now, if you do not accept it I’m afraid you will left behind. 

eskbanker

Theleak250 said:

The future is now...

When is the present?

strawb_shortcake

I've been having this conversation with my Dad tonight, he only goes into the bank to talk about his savings rates - can't convince him Lloyds is not offering him the best deal.
But all he really wants is to be able to check his balance a few times a week, and that can be done at the post office or supermarket.

I bank with barclays, pay day would have been nice to see my balance but not essential. Card still worked fortunately when my OH got fuel, less forced when it let me pay nearly £300 at the dentist. 

I'd rather free banking, than a branch I might go into once every 3 years.

As for my Dad, he asked for a lesson in online banking 

karvala

Theleak250 said:

I think some people operate in a dreamland  where captain Mainwaring is at their local branch, counting the money in their account and filling in the ledger. In reality the bank staff use the same systems you do when you use the app, pretty much. 

The future is now, if you do not accept it I’m afraid you will left behind. 

I think some people uncritically accept any propaganda the banks throw at them about how much better off they will be if the banks are allowed to close their branches, which just happens to increase banks profits.  Things can change, if the change leads to an improvement.  Things do not HAVE to change if the change leads to a detriment.  Passive acceptance of how things are as meaning that is how they MUST be, is why they continue to go in a direction that often leads you to be worse off.  The naive assumption that banks are making changes for your benefit - as opposed to their own - or that the banks doing whatever they want is inevitable and therefore we shouldn't complain about it, is exactly how they get away with these things.

karvala

strawb_shortcake said:

I've been having this conversation with my Dad tonight, he only goes into the bank to talk about his savings rates - can't convince him Lloyds is not offering him the best deal.
But all he really wants is to be able to check his balance a few times a week, and that can be done at the post office or supermarket.

I bank with barclays, pay day would have been nice to see my balance but not essential. Card still worked fortunately when my OH got fuel, less forced when it let me pay nearly £300 at the dentist. 

I'd rather free banking, than a branch I might go into once every 3 years.

As for my Dad, he asked for a lesson in online banking 

Here we are again: "I can have free banking or I can have a branch, so I choose free banking."  Who gave you those choices?  The bank, and you just accepted it.  Have you forgotten the countless decades when people had free banking AND a branch to go into?  It's not impossible to have both; it was done for years.  Banks were smaller, their profits were lower, but it worked for customers.  Then they realised that if they just told people they couldn't afford the branches anymore, and offered them a cheaper and less reliable alternative, many people would just accept it and they would get away with it.  It is not a genuine dichotomy; no bank will go bust if they their branches open.

Your card worked yesterday, you were lucky.  Some people had their house purchases cancelled and were left literally homeless as a result of yesterday's failure.  It is not unreasonable to expect banks to have systems in place to prevent this, including branches that can operate an old paper-based system if they have no reliable technological backup.