Lloyds Close More Branches While Their Online Banking Fails

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.

strawb_shortcake

karvala said:

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.

In branch banking is a service I don't need, it's a service that thousands and thousands of others don't need. You walk down any high street and the foot fall has fallen massively. I'd be tempted to suggest that high street banking is just a vanity project these days. 

Life has changed, banks were open as it was the only way to bank, now we have options, and the majority choose online. 

Yesterday was clearly difficult for some people, but I don't think for a minute a revert to paper banking would have been a savior for anyone due to complete on their house yesterday.

For those that have said they had no money for food, it's always a good idea to have a back up, a credit card, second account, cash. We know no system is infallible, so as individuals we can take some responsibility to mitigate against temporary failures.

twopenny

What I see here is a lot of confidence and conviction that where you live is the norm.

Frankly being dyslexic, no family, I need a branch to ensure I've got the important payments right. There are a lot of people like me with disabilities.

Being 5 mins to the bank it's quicker than trying to log into my account to go in when it tells me my date of birth doesn't match -or whatever doesn't match.

We have a very busy high street and the two banks that operate properly is busy and has options of machine or staff. And then we have NatWest that has been dismal in service for a very long time.

As for security I was chatting to a man whose BF had his online account hacked and was watching as the money was being taken out  fast in bits and pieces. He couldnt stop it. The bank wouldn't recompense because it came from his phone and he had no proof it wasn't him - £23,000 they got.

TheBanker

karvala said:

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.

At the end of the day, the banks are commercial entities that exist to make profits for their shareholders. I know that closing branches is not being done for my benefit but I do benefit from the investment they've made in digital solutions. I'd much rather use an app on my phone than spend my lunch break in a queue.

If having a branch is really important to you, move your banking to Nationwide or Virgin Money. They don't have shareholders and have made a committment to keep (most of) their branches open. There is a compromise though, Nationwide's app and digital services are not as good as some of the others.

TheBanker

karvala said:

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.

BIB: I don't think anyone was left 'literally homeless' - anyone buying a house would have sufficient resources to afford a Travelodge for the night, if it came to it.

And how would a branch have prevented that anyway? The systems were down - how do you think the paper based system would have helped? Do you think the person will withdraw their £200k mortgage in cash and to hand to the seller's solicitor?

TheBanker

Rob5342 said:

TheBanker said:

Hoenir said:

karvala said:

Yet another example of profits before service and "customer can lump it" corporate mentality.  

Retail current accounts in the UK are a free service therefore cost money. Would you prefer the international model of a monthly £10 - £15 charge?  I would as have very rarely used a branch in the past 30 years.  

I often wonder if the people who want branches to stay open would be happy to pay a transaction fee per visit to cover the costs of operating the branch.

I also wonder how many of the people that want them to stay open actually use them themselves. I know a few people that say it's terrible that banks are closing yet they all bank online as it's more convenient.

About 20 years ago I worked in a bank branch that was closing. It was in a small village and I only worked there for two months, after the closure had been announced. I was just filling in because it wasn't worth recruiting another member of staff.

One day, there was a protest outside the branch. The local paper turned up to cover it. The cashier I was working with had worked in that branch for decades, and said she did not recognise any of the people protesting as having ever been in the branch. If all those people had used the branch, we would not have been closing down.

Meanwhile, we'd been talking to the few regular customers we had about other options. They could go to the other branch, which was 1.5 miles away on a direct bus route. They could use the local Post Office which was next door. They could use the ATM which was attached to the Post Office. They could use online banking or they could do most of their banking by phone.

We had a couple of elderly customers who we were worried about, but that was solved by getting them to try doing a transaction at the Post Office while we were still open. They were fine and I am sure the Post Office staff looked out for them like we did. 

There were days when I was working in that branch when we didn't have to balance the tills, because we hadn't served a single customer... In those days a lot of 'admin' was still done in branches, and I used to get admin sent from other branches in the region just so we had something to occupy us.

Rob5342

karvala said:

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.

I chose to stsrt banking online with LLoyds in 1999 because it was so much more convenient. I haven't been into a branch since despite working three minutes walk from one for most of that time.

30 years ago branches were the only practical option, and banks were competing with other banks that also had branches. Now there is a cheaper alternative so the old fashioned banks are competing with app only banks who csn do things mucu more cheaply. Things that had demand once become unsustainable when the demand shifts elsewhere. You could say there were countless decades when your village had a hardware shop that everyone used. That shop couldn't exist now because b and q down the  road has much more stock and the s much cheaper so everyone would go there instead. 

The whole banking system is electronic so you can't practically hsve a paper based backup. Even if you could, think about how it would work. Everything would have to be sent off somewhere eand transactions would take days like they used to, which in all likelihood would take longer than that t took for yhe computer problem to be sorted out.

I think you are overstatimg the problem too. It's quite rare for bank systems to go down, and even if they went down for three days thats still more convenient than having all the hassle of going to a branch (which could easily take a week to find enough time)

Ultimately things just move on, hardly anyone uses branches now just as hardly anyone rents vhs cassettes or hss coal delivered. Companies either have to move with the times or go out of business. 

UKX69

strawb_shortcake said:

karvala said:

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.

In branch banking is a service I don't need, it's a service that thousands and thousands of others don't need. You walk down any high street and the foot fall has fallen massively. I'd be tempted to suggest that high street banking is just a vanity project these days. 

Life has changed, banks were open as it was the only way to bank, now we have options, and the majority choose online. 

Yesterday was clearly difficult for some people, but I don't think for a minute a revert to paper banking would have been a savior for anyone due to complete on their house yesterday.

For those that have said they had no money for food, it's always a good idea to have a back up, a credit card, second account, cash. We know no system is infallible, so as individuals we can take some responsibility to mitigate against temporary failures.

In my town, four of the big banks Santander, NatWest, HSBC and Lloyds are on one street with a car park opposite. I often sit there while Mrs Techniker does some shopping. I think it’s fair to say the people using those banks are like ants - in and out constantly. From what I can see, Lloyds is the busiest, so they must be doing something right! Footfall may have fallen, but branches are still popular. Each to his own.

username

boingy said:

Banking hubs are the way. One counter, any bank, maybe with specialist advisors in attendance one day per week.
They don't even have to be in premises of their own. They could be in supermarkets, cafes etc.
Whether the industry can summon up enough enthusiasm to do that sensibly remains to be seen. The problem the big names have is that if they get rid of all of their branches they lose their advantage over the low cost app-only banks.

For all those that are saying banking hubs are the solution, it is nothing more than a glorified post office but without the post office bit.

It needs bulking out a bit in terms of functionality - have machines from each bank so that clients can access and account, statement information and manage the account when there is no bank teller there.
Perhaps a machine from each bank like what HSBC are planning to do. 
They have this approach abroad where there are clusters of the banks' own machines in places like shopping centres.

penners324

Branches can be very vulnerable to fraud as well.

Neighbours mother had her handbag stolen in a local supermarket. 10 minutes later they've walked into branch and withdrawn £3000 over a counter. 

Apparently they became awfully apologetic when they realised the huge stuff up by the counter staff