First direct frustrations

born_again

[Deleted User] said:

born_again said:

[Deleted User] said:

Masonic - thank you for your reply. and I accept your point  Yes I do understand that some people are gullible and need protection, but the point I'm making and what I cannot accept, is when bank staff do not use their own initiative to save everybody's time - theirs and mine. 

Such as in my case - I was transferring the money back to my own account. An account that with some checking, FD could clearly see that the account was in my name and already set up on my FD account and would be familiar to them. So I do not see the need to raise any suspicion about being a fraudulent transaction.  In all, I probably had to answer several questions which took more than 10 mins on the phone and nearly a whole day to then release the payment.    I know it's not much, but do I dare mention that I lost a day's interest in the process    How is that justification.

Clearly never used banks system.
DD's are a separate system, so would not be in their face.

Have you never heard that fraudsters ask you to transfer funds to one of your own accounts & then remove the funds from there?

born_again said:

[Deleted User] said:

Masonic - thank you for your reply. and I accept your point  Yes I do understand that some people are gullible and need protection, but the point I'm making and what I cannot accept, is when bank staff do not use their own initiative to save everybody's time - theirs and mine. 

Such as in my case - I was transferring the money back to my own account. An account that with some checking, FD could clearly see that the account was in my name and already set up on my FD account and would be familiar to them. So I do not see the need to raise any suspicion about being a fraudulent transaction.  In all, I probably had to answer several questions which took more than 10 mins on the phone and nearly a whole day to then release the payment.    I know it's not much, but do I dare mention that I lost a day's interest in the process    How is that justification.

Clearly never used banks system.
DD's are a separate system, so would not be in their face.

Have you never heard that fraudsters ask you to transfer funds to one of your own accounts & then remove the funds from there?

First of all, it was not a DD payment that I was making and there's nothing to stop them from making diligent checks.  Secondly, please don't make assumptions you know nothing about.  FYI, I used to design banking systems for a living.  But it would seem that despite all the profits they make, they continue to use legacy systems which are cheaper to tweak than invest in new systems.       .  

Cost of a new system is well into the many millions. I know as I worked with a IBM team who were looking at bringing in a new system for us. 
Suffice to say that we are still on legacy systems, as they could not integrate the years of data that was required. No good having a new system, if it does not include all customers historical account data.

[Deleted User]

born_again said:

[Deleted User] said:

born_again said:

[Deleted User] said:

Masonic - thank you for your reply. and I accept your point  Yes I do understand that some people are gullible and need protection, but the point I'm making and what I cannot accept, is when bank staff do not use their own initiative to save everybody's time - theirs and mine. 

Such as in my case - I was transferring the money back to my own account. An account that with some checking, FD could clearly see that the account was in my name and already set up on my FD account and would be familiar to them. So I do not see the need to raise any suspicion about being a fraudulent transaction.  In all, I probably had to answer several questions which took more than 10 mins on the phone and nearly a whole day to then release the payment.    I know it's not much, but do I dare mention that I lost a day's interest in the process    How is that justification.

Clearly never used banks system.
DD's are a separate system, so would not be in their face.

Have you never heard that fraudsters ask you to transfer funds to one of your own accounts & then remove the funds from there?

born_again said:

[Deleted User] said:

Masonic - thank you for your reply. and I accept your point  Yes I do understand that some people are gullible and need protection, but the point I'm making and what I cannot accept, is when bank staff do not use their own initiative to save everybody's time - theirs and mine. 

Such as in my case - I was transferring the money back to my own account. An account that with some checking, FD could clearly see that the account was in my name and already set up on my FD account and would be familiar to them. So I do not see the need to raise any suspicion about being a fraudulent transaction.  In all, I probably had to answer several questions which took more than 10 mins on the phone and nearly a whole day to then release the payment.    I know it's not much, but do I dare mention that I lost a day's interest in the process    How is that justification.

Clearly never used banks system.
DD's are a separate system, so would not be in their face.

Have you never heard that fraudsters ask you to transfer funds to one of your own accounts & then remove the funds from there?

First of all, it was not a DD payment that I was making and there's nothing to stop them from making diligent checks.  Secondly, please don't make assumptions you know nothing about.  FYI, I used to design banking systems for a living.  But it would seem that despite all the profits they make, they continue to use legacy systems which are cheaper to tweak than invest in new systems.       .  

Cost of a new system is well into the many millions. I know as I worked with a IBM team who were looking at bringing in a new system for us. 
Suffice to say that we are still on legacy systems, as they could not integrate the years of data that was required. No good having a new system, if it does not include all customers historical account data.

And there, you have summed up the crunch of the problem.  PURE GREED. The decision makers are more interested in paying themselves big bonuses (many of whom do not deserve it) and no doubt, big dividends to impress shareholders, than invest in new systems. I never worked directly for banks, but liaised with many bankers while working for systems consultancy firms.  So I have seen everything from inside and out.  So they would rather stay on old and unmanageable systems, giving their own staff the inconvenience and frustration of working with inadequate systems, and us customers, having to endure poor and sub-standard service. 

As for having to stay on your old system due to not being able to integrate the historical data, this, I do not understand.  Possibly something that staff were told as a feeble excuse to justify not going ahead with the project. If you believe that, then you are being very naive.  Since historical data is usually for read/display only (no updates), there is absolutely no reason that I can see that an interface could not be provided to retrieve the historical data into a new system, and display as required along side the current data.  Needless to say, there will be additional costs, but I do not accept that this excuse would have been a valid reason not to proceed with the project .  In systems terms, anything is possible, giving the willingness to pay for the service, and commitment to priorities. Unfortunately, both qualities appear to have been missing in your circumstances.            

[Deleted User]

EarthBoy said:

First Direct's app is only basic, but that's one of the reasons that many customers like it. They just want to be able to check their balance, pay bills, and transfer money.  They don't want all the bells and whistles that you find in some other banks' apps because they're too confusing. 

I think you have your priorities the wrong way round. Yes, I agree-it does provide the very basic needs that you mentioned, but in a very clumsy and convoluted way.  Incidentally, the same for HSBC who share the same inadequate system. But the reason why First Direct's app, is very basic, is nothing to do with First Direct having their customer's interests in mind as you seem to imply.  It's more to do that they can't be bothered to invest money in suitable systems and more interested in giving their executives big bonuses.    

masonic

[Deleted User] said:

EarthBoy said:

First Direct's app is only basic, but that's one of the reasons that many customers like it. They just want to be able to check their balance, pay bills, and transfer money.  They don't want all the bells and whistles that you find in some other banks' apps because they're too confusing. 

I think you have your priorities the wrong way round. Yes, I agree-it does provide the very basic needs that you mentioned, but in a very clumsy and convoluted way.  Incidentally, the same for HSBC who share the same inadequate system. But the reason why First Direct's app, is very basic, is nothing to do with First Direct having their customer's interests in mind as you seem to imply.  It's more to do that they can't be bothered to invest money in suitable systems and more interested in giving their executives big bonuses.    

Maybe I have my priorities the wrong way round too, as I find it better than apps from several other banks, such as those from Lloyds group, Santander, Nationwide, Natwest, etc. Though I did like Starling's app a lot.

[Deleted User]

born_again said:

[Deleted User] said:

Yes very frustrating.  I had something similar.  I rang my credit card company, key in my 16 digit number before being put through to a human.  I then get asked for my 16 digit number.  It's enough to test your patience.  But please help me out here to save my sanity.  You say you don't make a fuss and you don't blame the staff, (I admire your patience) so what do you think is the cause of so much incompetence.  As I said earlier, such incompetence is not only with banks these days, but with many organisations, such as utility companies, surgeries, hospitals, care homes.  In fact, I can't name any company that has any credibility going for it.  Absolute disgrace.    

Entering Card number will bring up your account on their screens, so when you get to a human, they just have a account on their screen. Asking you again is to ensure that you are the card holder. 
Try it from the other side 🤣

Vote with your feet if you don't like it. But good luck on find something you like 🤷‍♀️

So you mean to tell me that in the time between me entering the card number and actually speaking to a human, someone who happened to show up after I keyed in the number and probably still have the card in my hand which I needed to key in the number, could have snatched my phone, kicked me in the head and pretends to be me.  So asking to repeat the card number is evidence that it's really the card holder speaking. You really believe that
.
 And for what gain.  Not able to change any personal details as this will require corroboratory evidence, or borrow/transfer money.  What would a person pretending to be me speaking to a credit card company could do by speaking to them.  

 .  

[Deleted User]

masonic said:

[Deleted User] said:

EarthBoy said:

First Direct's app is only basic, but that's one of the reasons that many customers like it. They just want to be able to check their balance, pay bills, and transfer money.  They don't want all the bells and whistles that you find in some other banks' apps because they're too confusing. 

I think you have your priorities the wrong way round. Yes, I agree-it does provide the very basic needs that you mentioned, but in a very clumsy and convoluted way.  Incidentally, the same for HSBC who share the same inadequate system. But the reason why First Direct's app, is very basic, is nothing to do with First Direct having their customer's interests in mind as you seem to imply.  It's more to do that they can't be bothered to invest money in suitable systems and more interested in giving their executives big bonuses.    

Maybe I have my priorities the wrong way round too, as I find it better than apps from several other banks, such as those from Lloyds group, Santander, Nationwide, Natwest, etc. Though I did like Starling's app a lot.

Not sure I totally agree with you here.  With regards to Lloyds, yes I'll give you that one, but as for Santander and certainly Nationwide they are well structured and intuitive.  Natwest in my opinion, is an overkill  Lots of features which can be regarded as unnecessary, but still very well structured, and once you get used to it, you will grow to like it.  Not familiar with Starling but would imagine it to be one of the best.  But hey, all these are down to personal preferences - you can't please everyone all of the time  .    .    

masonic

[Deleted User] said:

masonic said:

[Deleted User] said:

EarthBoy said:

First Direct's app is only basic, but that's one of the reasons that many customers like it. They just want to be able to check their balance, pay bills, and transfer money.  They don't want all the bells and whistles that you find in some other banks' apps because they're too confusing. 

I think you have your priorities the wrong way round. Yes, I agree-it does provide the very basic needs that you mentioned, but in a very clumsy and convoluted way.  Incidentally, the same for HSBC who share the same inadequate system. But the reason why First Direct's app, is very basic, is nothing to do with First Direct having their customer's interests in mind as you seem to imply.  It's more to do that they can't be bothered to invest money in suitable systems and more interested in giving their executives big bonuses.    

Maybe I have my priorities the wrong way round too, as I find it better than apps from several other banks, such as those from Lloyds group, Santander, Nationwide, Natwest, etc. Though I did like Starling's app a lot.

Not sure I totally agree with you here.  With regards to Lloyds, yes I'll give you that one, but as for Santander and certainly Nationwide they are well structured and intuitive.  Natwest in my opinion, is an overkill  Lots of features which can be regarded as unnecessary, but still very well structured, and once you get used to it, you will grow to like it.  Not familiar with Starling but would imagine it to be one of the best.  But hey, all these are down to personal preferences - you can't please everyone all of the time  .    .    

Nationwide's is a clunky mess. I prefer its online banking system and that's saying something. I could not even face leaving it installed on my phone. Santander's does not have the facility to set a separate display name for a payee, which immediately caps my grading at a D-. I simply could not use it as my main account with over a dozen payees in my own name. It would otherwise have a better rating.

born_again

[Deleted User] said:

born_again said:

[Deleted User] said:

born_again said:

[Deleted User] said:

Masonic - thank you for your reply. and I accept your point  Yes I do understand that some people are gullible and need protection, but the point I'm making and what I cannot accept, is when bank staff do not use their own initiative to save everybody's time - theirs and mine. 

Such as in my case - I was transferring the money back to my own account. An account that with some checking, FD could clearly see that the account was in my name and already set up on my FD account and would be familiar to them. So I do not see the need to raise any suspicion about being a fraudulent transaction.  In all, I probably had to answer several questions which took more than 10 mins on the phone and nearly a whole day to then release the payment.    I know it's not much, but do I dare mention that I lost a day's interest in the process    How is that justification.

Clearly never used banks system.
DD's are a separate system, so would not be in their face.

Have you never heard that fraudsters ask you to transfer funds to one of your own accounts & then remove the funds from there?

born_again said:

[Deleted User] said:

Masonic - thank you for your reply. and I accept your point  Yes I do understand that some people are gullible and need protection, but the point I'm making and what I cannot accept, is when bank staff do not use their own initiative to save everybody's time - theirs and mine. 

Such as in my case - I was transferring the money back to my own account. An account that with some checking, FD could clearly see that the account was in my name and already set up on my FD account and would be familiar to them. So I do not see the need to raise any suspicion about being a fraudulent transaction.  In all, I probably had to answer several questions which took more than 10 mins on the phone and nearly a whole day to then release the payment.    I know it's not much, but do I dare mention that I lost a day's interest in the process    How is that justification.

Clearly never used banks system.
DD's are a separate system, so would not be in their face.

Have you never heard that fraudsters ask you to transfer funds to one of your own accounts & then remove the funds from there?

First of all, it was not a DD payment that I was making and there's nothing to stop them from making diligent checks.  Secondly, please don't make assumptions you know nothing about.  FYI, I used to design banking systems for a living.  But it would seem that despite all the profits they make, they continue to use legacy systems which are cheaper to tweak than invest in new systems.       .  

Cost of a new system is well into the many millions. I know as I worked with a IBM team who were looking at bringing in a new system for us. 
Suffice to say that we are still on legacy systems, as they could not integrate the years of data that was required. No good having a new system, if it does not include all customers historical account data.

And there, you have summed up the crunch of the problem.  PURE GREED. The decision makers are more interested in paying themselves big bonuses (many of whom do not deserve it) and no doubt, big dividends to impress shareholders, than invest in new systems. I never worked directly for banks, but liaised with many bankers while working for systems consultancy firms.  So I have seen everything from inside and out.  So they would rather stay on old and unmanageable systems, giving their own staff the inconvenience and frustration of working with inadequate systems, and us customers, having to endure poor and sub-standard service. 

As for having to stay on your old system due to not being able to integrate the historical data, this, I do not understand.  Possibly something that staff were told as a feeble excuse to justify not going ahead with the project. If you believe that, then you are being very naive.  Since historical data is usually for read/display only (no updates), there is absolutely no reason that I can see that an interface could not be provided to retrieve the historical data into a new system, and display as required along side the current data.  Needless to say, there will be additional costs, but I do not accept that this excuse would have been a valid reason not to proceed with the project .  In systems terms, anything is possible, giving the willingness to pay for the service, and commitment to priorities. Unfortunately, both qualities appear to have been missing in your circumstances.            

Remember TSB major upgrade failure. Fine from FCA was £49 million, over £30 million in compensation.

This is all banks fear, no matter how much testing. There is always a risk. So when the legacy systems work. Spending millions tends to be something that could fail & cost even more. Is a major risk that banks are not willing to take.
Not so much greed, more not willing to take the risk.

The whole idea of a new system is to get rid of the legacy systems. Having a link between new & old defeats the purpose & is a pointless waste of money.

born_again

[Deleted User] said:

born_again said:

[Deleted User] said:

Yes very frustrating.  I had something similar.  I rang my credit card company, key in my 16 digit number before being put through to a human.  I then get asked for my 16 digit number.  It's enough to test your patience.  But please help me out here to save my sanity.  You say you don't make a fuss and you don't blame the staff, (I admire your patience) so what do you think is the cause of so much incompetence.  As I said earlier, such incompetence is not only with banks these days, but with many organisations, such as utility companies, surgeries, hospitals, care homes.  In fact, I can't name any company that has any credibility going for it.  Absolute disgrace.    

Entering Card number will bring up your account on their screens, so when you get to a human, they just have a account on their screen. Asking you again is to ensure that you are the card holder. 
Try it from the other side 🤣

Vote with your feet if you don't like it. But good luck on find something you like 🤷‍♀️

So you mean to tell me that in the time between me entering the card number and actually speaking to a human, someone who happened to show up after I keyed in the number and probably still have the card in my hand which I needed to key in the number, could have snatched my phone, kicked me in the head and pretends to be me.  So asking to repeat the card number is evidence that it's really the card holder speaking. You really believe that
.
 And for what gain.  Not able to change any personal details as this will require corroboratory evidence, or borrow/transfer money.  What would a person pretending to be me speaking to a credit card company could do by speaking to them.  

 .  

Heard it happen where a fraudster takes over a call after customer goes through security.

Do you realise how easy it is to get a 16 digit card number? If that is the only security to get through & make transactions. Then dump that bank fast, as their security is so poor FCA would shut them down.

EarthBoy

[Deleted User] said:

EarthBoy said:

First Direct's app is only basic, but that's one of the reasons that many customers like it. They just want to be able to check their balance, pay bills, and transfer money.  They don't want all the bells and whistles that you find in some other banks' apps because they're too confusing. 

I think you have your priorities the wrong way round. Yes, I agree-it does provide the very basic needs that you mentioned, but in a very clumsy and convoluted way.  Incidentally, the same for HSBC who share the same inadequate system. But the reason why First Direct's app, is very basic, is nothing to do with First Direct having their customer's interests in mind as you seem to imply.  It's more to do that they can't be bothered to invest money in suitable systems and more interested in giving their executives big bonuses.    

The actual reason for First Direct's app being basic is irrelevant.  What matters is that a large proportion of their customers are happy with it. 

It's certainly not convoluted.