Yearning for the return of proper debit cards

Hattie627

Really interesting discussion and I've learned something useful, I have an RBS current account. I don't use this as my main account and don't carry its debit card with me, although I do have one. I have just looked at the RBS website and learned how to generate a code on the RBS app to enable me to withdraw cash without a card at an RBS atm. This had totally passed me by. I doubt many people know that this is possible, Thank you to the poster above who pointed this out!

PS to add: the website says that once generated on the app, the code lasts for 3 hours. Presumably if you don't use it within the 3 hours you can just generate another one.

moneyaspie2024

MattMattMattUK said:

Section62 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

I have never understood why so many people are desperate to cling to outdated and less effective tech. I am in my early forties, never written a cheque, the only ones I have received in the last decade were HMRC and the DVLA, not used cash in nearly six years and barely for several years before that, probably used a physical card less than ten times in the last five years. 

All those older methods are slower, less efficient, costly to operate and much more open to fraud, I cannot see why people are so resistant to adopting them.

Because what works for you might not work for them.  Things which - admittedly are likely edge cases rather than the norm - are important functionality to the people who use them... for example paying for something in a rural area with no mobile and broadband is a lot easier if you can give the seller cash or a cheque rather than travelling together somewhere you can make the payment by electronic means.

I think that is more than edge, moving to not real. Contactless does not require the person paying has an internet connection and any business taking them is going to have sorted out their connectivity requirements. To pay with cash one would need to have collected it from somewhere first so it would still involve travelling. The people I know of who are resistant to change are not doing it because of lack of ability to use it, but because of a blind resistance to change. It works for pretty much everyone, those clinging to outdated payment methods are not doing so because of necessity, but because they refuse to accept change.

Section62 said:

I've never understood why some people cannot put themselves in someone else's shoes to see an issue from a different side.  Why would someone get angry that a payment method which works for some people is still made available, given that they themselves are not being forced to use it?

Providing and supporting those legacy systems increases costs to business which is passed onto the rest of us, it makes the economy less efficient which negatively impacts all of us and most of all because the vast majority of the time they are being dishonest about their reasoning. If they were honest and said "I don't like change and am being deliberately stubborn" then I would disagree with their rationale but admire their honesty, instead the make up reasons, often outright lying as to why they will not change and want to keep using archaic processes. It is frustrating that the rest of us have to carry the cost of those people refusing to change, but it is even worse that they choose to lie to us as their claimed justification for refusal to change.

That’s incorrect, contactless payments are all online authorised now, it did used to be the case where they where all processed offline several years ago and the terminal didn’t need to do a real time connection, that ended up with people running unarranged/overlimit on their accounts and it also enabled fraudsters to use the card even after it was reported lost or stolen, therefore all X2X transactions and the vast majority of X0X transactions are online authorised. 

Offline payments are also only possible with X0X cards which are not issued on basic or under 18s accounts as they are deemed a lending facility, Apple Pay and Google Pay can only be used if there is a live connection to the merchant network in all circumstances, businesses aren’t always in control of cellular connectivity especially in remote parts of the country so they would then have to fall back on cash or cheques. 

moneyaspie2024

MattMattMattUK said:

Providing and supporting those legacy systems increases costs to business which is passed onto the rest of us, it makes the economy less efficient which negatively impacts all of us and most of all because the vast majority of the time they are being dishonest about their reasoning. If they were honest and said "I don't like change and am being deliberately stubborn" then I would disagree with their rationale but admire their honesty, instead the make up reasons, often outright lying as to why they will not change and want to keep using archaic processes. It is frustrating that the rest of us have to carry the cost of those people refusing to change, but it is even worse that they choose to lie to us as their claimed justification for refusal to change.

That’s rubbish, for starters most small businesses can deposit cheques and cash for free into their business accounts upto a certain limit, in fact for small businesses it actually costs more to accept card/contactless payments as they have to pay a fee everytime it’s used. 

My local barber has stopped accepting cards, due to the cost involved for small merchants, of course it’s cheaper for Tescos and big high street chains to accept cards but people don’t seem to see beyond that and now expect to use their card everywhere, small businesses are unable to set minimum spend and hence why a lot of local businesses and traders who previously accepted cards now don’t. 

MattMattMattUK

moneyaspie2024 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Section62 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

I have never understood why so many people are desperate to cling to outdated and less effective tech. I am in my early forties, never written a cheque, the only ones I have received in the last decade were HMRC and the DVLA, not used cash in nearly six years and barely for several years before that, probably used a physical card less than ten times in the last five years. 

All those older methods are slower, less efficient, costly to operate and much more open to fraud, I cannot see why people are so resistant to adopting them.

Because what works for you might not work for them.  Things which - admittedly are likely edge cases rather than the norm - are important functionality to the people who use them... for example paying for something in a rural area with no mobile and broadband is a lot easier if you can give the seller cash or a cheque rather than travelling together somewhere you can make the payment by electronic means.

I think that is more than edge, moving to not real. Contactless does not require the person paying has an internet connection and any business taking them is going to have sorted out their connectivity requirements. To pay with cash one would need to have collected it from somewhere first so it would still involve travelling. The people I know of who are resistant to change are not doing it because of lack of ability to use it, but because of a blind resistance to change. It works for pretty much everyone, those clinging to outdated payment methods are not doing so because of necessity, but because they refuse to accept change.

Section62 said:

I've never understood why some people cannot put themselves in someone else's shoes to see an issue from a different side.  Why would someone get angry that a payment method which works for some people is still made available, given that they themselves are not being forced to use it?

Providing and supporting those legacy systems increases costs to business which is passed onto the rest of us, it makes the economy less efficient which negatively impacts all of us and most of all because the vast majority of the time they are being dishonest about their reasoning. If they were honest and said "I don't like change and am being deliberately stubborn" then I would disagree with their rationale but admire their honesty, instead the make up reasons, often outright lying as to why they will not change and want to keep using archaic processes. It is frustrating that the rest of us have to carry the cost of those people refusing to change, but it is even worse that they choose to lie to us as their claimed justification for refusal to change.

That’s incorrect, contactless payments are all online authorised now, it did used to be the case where they where all processed offline several years ago and the terminal didn’t need to do a real time connection, that ended up with people running unarranged/overlimit on their accounts and it also enabled fraudsters to use the card even after it was reported lost or stolen, therefore all X2X transactions and the vast majority of X0X transactions are online authorised. 

Offline payments are also only possible with X0X cards which are not issued on basic or under 18s accounts as they are deemed a lending facility, Apple Pay and Google Pay can only be used if there is a live connection to the merchant network in all circumstances, businesses aren’t always in control of cellular connectivity especially in remote parts of the country so they would then have to fall back on cash or cheques. 

I said the business, the person paying does not need an internet connection to use a contactless card. The same with Google Wallet and Apple Pay, the customer device does not need to have an active connection. Businesses will manage their connections, if they need one they will get one that works. 

MattMattMattUK

moneyaspie2024 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Providing and supporting those legacy systems increases costs to business which is passed onto the rest of us, it makes the economy less efficient which negatively impacts all of us and most of all because the vast majority of the time they are being dishonest about their reasoning. If they were honest and said "I don't like change and am being deliberately stubborn" then I would disagree with their rationale but admire their honesty, instead the make up reasons, often outright lying as to why they will not change and want to keep using archaic processes. It is frustrating that the rest of us have to carry the cost of those people refusing to change, but it is even worse that they choose to lie to us as their claimed justification for refusal to change.

That’s rubbish, for starters most small businesses can deposit cheques and cash for free into their business accounts upto a certain limit, in fact for small businesses it actually costs more to accept card/contactless payments as they have to pay a fee everytime it’s used. 

My local barber has stopped accepting cards, due to the cost involved for small merchants, of course it’s cheaper for Tescos and big high street chains to accept cards but people don’t seem to see beyond that and now expect to use their card everywhere, small businesses are unable to set minimum spend and hence why a lot of local businesses and traders who previously accepted cards now don’t. 

Cheques cost small businesses to pay in both in financial terms and time involved, either having to travel to a branch or some will allow low value cheques to be paid in by the app, which then takes five working days for funds to be available. I run a few small businesses and it really does not cost more to use cards, they are around 1.2-2.5%, I pay an average of 1.6% for UK cards and 2.24% for international cards, that is far lower than the cost and time of cash handling fees, the increased insurance costs because of cash, the increased error rate with cash etc.. Even when I ran a put twenty years ago card works out cheaper overall than cash.

It is cheaper for major retailers, Tesco is probably paying around 0.6% so a cheaper rate, but for small businesses cash is more expensive, unless they are using cash to evade tax.

moneyaspie2024

MattMattMattUK said:

I said the business, the person paying does not need an internet connection to use a contactless card. The same with Google Wallet and Apple Pay, the customer device does not need to have an active connection. Businesses will manage their connections, if they need one they will get one that works. 

But if the person can’t receive a cellular connection due to where they are then a business won’t be able to get one either, your response is a tad over-simplistic. 

moneyaspie2024

MattMattMattUK said:

Cheques cost small businesses to pay in both in financial terms and time involved, either having to travel to a branch or some will allow low value cheques to be paid in by the app, which then takes five working days for funds to be available. I run a few small businesses and it really does not cost more to use cards, they are around 1.2-2.5%, I pay an average of 1.6% for UK cards and 2.24% for international cards, that is far lower than the cost and time of cash handling fees, the increased insurance costs because of cash, the increased error rate with cash etc.. Even when I ran a put twenty years ago card works out cheaper overall than cash.

It is cheaper for major retailers, Tesco is probably paying around 0.6% so a cheaper rate, but for small businesses cash is more expensive, unless they are using cash to evade tax.

It depends on how much turnover the business is making, if you are a sole trader that has a day job but runs a business on the side then it’s very expensive to accept card, as I said banks will usually allow business customers a free limit in which cash and cheques can be deposited. 

Section62

MattMattMattUK said:

...

Providing and supporting those legacy systems increases costs to business which is passed onto the rest of us, it makes the economy less efficient which negatively impacts all of us and most of all because the vast majority of the time they are being dishonest about their reasoning. If they were honest and said "I don't like change and am being deliberately stubborn" then I would disagree with their rationale but admire their honesty, instead the make up reasons, often outright lying as to why they will not change and want to keep using archaic processes. It is frustrating that the rest of us have to carry the cost of those people refusing to change, but it is even worse that they choose to lie to us as their claimed justification for refusal to change.

Seems Dame Meg Hillier and the Treasury Committee she chairs lack your ability to discern that people unknown to them are being "dishonest" about their payment choices, and "lying" about it.

"A sizeable minority depend on being able to use cash," said Dame Meg Hillier

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjwvgqz3vxzo

Personally I'd prefer to base my opinion on something like the work of a Parliamentary committee, rather than "The people I know of".  The latter risks introducing bias into my thinking based on limiting my horizon to what I know already, rather than appreciating there is a bigger and more diverse world out there.

As an example, one of my interests is collecting petroliana.  Although generally I'm quite happy to pay contactless where available, I recognise that more often than not the people I'm buying from are reluctant sellers (and not all sellers are businesses) and I need to do a deal based on their payment preference and ability to accept payment, as well as making them feel better about selling.  From my experience, paper cash they can see in front of them is more likely to overcome any reluctance than proffering Applepay.  For some of them, their shed in the middle of nowhere lacks mobile signal and broadband, and they certainly don't have a payment terminal.  I could stamp my feet and demand they accept my contactless payment... but that isn't going to get me what I want.  (More likely an Arkell v Pressdram response, which I would frankly deserve).

I don't need to travel to get cash, because (like others) I'd have some cash on me (and a chequebook) on the offchance - not least because if you live in the country you learn pretty quickly to be prepared for stuff you don't necessarily experience in towns and cities.

So I need to use cash (and cheques) because that is what the people I'm buying from want to use.  There's no point telling them they have to modernise because they'd rather not sell than meet your expectations of how things should be.  And feel free to accuse me of "outright lying" if you wish... but I know what I do, and you don't.

Rob5342

There's another cost with cash as making it more difficult for people to spend money means you are missing out on sales, that's a cost you can't easily determine. I went to a Christmas Market last week and wanted to buy some chocolates but they didn't accept card, I was going to go and get some cash but walked past another stall that did accept card so I just bought some from there instead. Easier for me and the first stall missed out on that sale.

It's the same with the chip shop near me that only takes cash. I usually go to the shop next door to get £20 cash out and get a couple of drinks at the same time as I can pay by card, and then limit Wendy I spend in the chip shop to £20 at that's all I have. If the chip shop took card i'd probably get the drinks there to as well as some curry sauce and spend £26+ instead. I can't help thinking that they are shooting themselves in the foot. 

Section62

Rob5342 said:

There's another cost with cash as making it more difficult for people to spend money means you are missing out on sales, that's a cost you can't easily determine. I went to a Christmas Market last week and wanted to buy some chocolates but they didn't accept card, I was going to go and get some cash but walked past another stall that did accept card so I just bought some from there instead. Easier for me and the first stall missed out on that sale.

It's the same with the chip shop near me that only takes cash. I usually go to the shop next door to get £20 cash out and get a couple of drinks at the same time as I can pay by card, and then limit Wendy I spend in the chip shop to £20 at that's all I have. If the chip shop took card i'd probably get the drinks there to as well as some curry sauce and spend £26+ instead. I can't help thinking that they are shooting themselves in the foot. 

Maybe, or if they aren't really bad businesspeople perhaps they have looked at their turnover and profit and worked out that (for the time being) being cash only works for them.

Not everyone trades to make the maximum turnover/profit.  Another example local to me are honesty box stalls for fruit&veg, eggs and honey.  Cash only, but cheques are sometimes Ok.  Their concession to technology might be a battery powered wildlife camera to deter the folk who don't understand the meaning of honesty.

They couldn't give two hoots if someone who doesn't do cash drives past and does their shopping at Tesco instead.  Maximising turnover is not why they are doing it.  Without cash, they would probably give up.  Which would be a shame as they provide a useful service for the people who can't or don't want to be tied to doing supermarket shopping every week, and for those of us who appreciate really fresh food with a very low carbon footprint.