Barclays reverses decision on post office cash withdrawals - MSE News

20SmthngSver wrote: »

Last week Barclays decided that their counters would close an hour before the branch at 4pm and be closed completely on a Saturday. It's like they don't want you to use the counters or branches in the afternoons or Saturday now... And not using the Post Office either. What do they want from customers?

Like pretty much every other bank, I imagine they'd prefer it if their customers transacted online, as this costs the bank less money (and has benefits for customers too, for those able and willing to embrace this). However, there is still a sizable amount of cash-based (and other) activity happening in branches and POs, so trying to force the issue is always going to be unpopular....


P.S. Good to see that MSE's thorough journalistic standards are being maintained:

Jess Staley, chief executive of Barclays Group, said [...]

She said....

Er, that'll be James ("Jes") Staley then, who I believe identifies as male.

Edit: article now updated accordingly!

20SmthngSver wrote: »

Well obviously, the banks will always want what suits them. But without customers, they have no bank.

Well obviously, without customers they have no bank!

Like any other commercial organisation, they have to strike a balance between generating profits and keeping their customers happy, with many business decisions entailing a trade-off between one and the other.

Clearly they're not going to go out of their way to irritate customers for the hell of it but conversely they're not always going to satisfy their customers at any price, and hence the programmes of branch closures that they, and their competitors, have been undertaking for many years now.

PO will obviously charge banks for providing banking services and I get the impression that Barclays were unhappy about some aspects of the contractual arrangements, but based on the quotes in the article they've obviously been leant on to (re-)sign up for now, although interestingly the CEO suggests that the most significant pressure was from government rather than customers.

20SmthngSver wrote: »

Last week Barclays decided that their counters would close an hour before the branch at 4pm and be closed completely on a Saturday. It's like they don't want you to use the counters or branches in the afternoons or Saturday now... And not using the Post Office either. What do they want from customers?

It's obviously not ideal but it's a compromise (many banks don't open at all on Saturdays - wouldn't you prefer the ability to deposit cheques and cash at the self service machines, if the alternative is no branch banking at all that day?). Many banks have found themselves in positions where there is demand for evening/weekend banking - and indeed some business customers may see this as a dealbreaker - but there isn't the footfall to justify keeping the branch open with a full complement of counter services, personal advisors etc during these extended and off-peak hours. No doubt there's a calculation out there that suggests it's the optimal trade off between providing the most facilities for the longest amount of time while also keeping overheads to a minimum and incurring the smallest number of complaints and account closures as a result. You can't please all of the people all of the time.


The decision re: Post Office banking was rescinded.


What do they "want" customers to do? Well, that's probably the wrong direction to approach the question. What is most simple and efficient for most customers will be to do the majority of their banking themselves, using things such as ATMs, online banking, and mobile banking apps. Why would you leave the house and stand in a queue to do something you could achieve from the comfort of your armchair? Branch services will always be there for those who need them, for example if somebody is unable to access technology, or has complex needs that need to be met by a human cashier or advisor. And ultimately those services are available to everyone who chooses to use them, not just those who really need them.



And that's the mindset I wish more people would take. Instead of being one of those entrenched "consumer rights activists" who stands in line tutting and remarking about how few cashiers are serving or how few advisors are available, consider whether you could be getting things done in a different, more efficient way - and also consider what more needy, deserving person could have your place in the queue. We would frown at an able bodied person who made a bee-line for the one and only disabled toilet just because it's their preference and it's "what they've always done".

Flobberchops wrote: »

Branch services will always be there for those who need them, ...

Only for as long as the branch is there, and branch networks are shrinking. For me. going into branch now involves a ten minute bus journey, for others it might be an hour's journey.

Flobberchops wrote: »

It was an idealistic statement maybe, but in general, if there is demand for a service, that service will continue to be provided (or an acceptable equivalent offered).

Idealistic certainly. You can't say a service will be provided just because there is a 'demand'' for it.

All of our local banks have gone. We only have a post office whereas 10 years ago we had all the major banks.

There was undoubtedly 'demand' for them - we used them. Several of them. But obviously not enough for the banks to stay.

The demand was, I assume, not sufficient on whatever the bank's definition is of that.

I don't think it's fair to say that in general, if there is a demand for service, it will be provided. That's not necessarily the case.