Bank branch closures

[Eric Mc]

Too many people just want to boss others about - i.e. their attitude is, "do it my way. If you don't, you're an idiot. Which means, of course, I'm smart".

It's a horrible attitude and extremely rude - to say the least.

[bad company]

Eric Mc said:

The problem is the modern ethos that PLCs only have one responsibility - and that is to their shareholders. Customers and society at large can go hang.

As I said - it stinks.

And your alternative is?

[V8mate]

bad company said:

Eric Mc said:

The problem is the modern ethos that PLCs only have one responsibility - and that is to their shareholders. Customers and society at large can go hang.

As I said - it stinks.

And your alternative is?

An end to commercial banking and the introduction of a single state-controlled Corbyn Undertakings National Transaction Bank

[Zetec-S]

bad company said:

Eric Mc said:

The problem is the modern ethos that PLCs only have one responsibility - and that is to their shareholders. Customers and society at large can go hang.

As I said - it stinks.

And your alternative is?

I mentioned before, but premises/branch sharing arrangements between banks. Then government regulation ring fencing a requirement to ensure a minimum number of branches (incl shared branches) serving an area. That way the banks can reduce the number physical locations and save money, but the services are still open to everyone, no matter which bank they're with.

That's my starter for 10 anyway...

[bad company]

V8mate said:

bad company said:

Eric Mc said:

The problem is the modern ethos that PLCs only have one responsibility - and that is to their shareholders. Customers and society at large can go hang.

As I said - it stinks.

And your alternative is?

An end to commercial banking and the introduction of a single state-controlled Corbyn Undertakings National Transaction Bank

Great idea Comrade.

[V8mate]

Zetec-S said:

bad company said:

Eric Mc said:

The problem is the modern ethos that PLCs only have one responsibility - and that is to their shareholders. Customers and society at large can go hang.

As I said - it stinks.

And your alternative is?

I mentioned before, but premises/branch sharing arrangements between banks. Then government regulation ring fencing a requirement to ensure a minimum number of branches (incl shared branches) serving an area. That way the banks can reduce the number physical locations and save money, but the services are still open to everyone, no matter which bank they're with.

That's my starter for 10 anyway...

They could call it the... Post Office?!

Oh no - that's good. They're closing all their branches too!

[FiF]

V8mate said:

Zetec-S said:

bad company said:

Eric Mc said:

The problem is the modern ethos that PLCs only have one responsibility - and that is to their shareholders. Customers and society at large can go hang.

As I said - it stinks.

And your alternative is?

I mentioned before, but premises/branch sharing arrangements between banks. Then government regulation ring fencing a requirement to ensure a minimum number of branches (incl shared branches) serving an area. That way the banks can reduce the number physical locations and save money, but the services are still open to everyone, no matter which bank they're with.

That's my starter for 10 anyway...

They could call it the... Post Office?!

Oh no - that's good. They're closing all their branches too!

Aiui within the protocol agreed by the banks they made a commitment when considering branch closures to maintain some degree of cover between them. Not sure if it's a commitment precisely or simply something they would take into consideration, and then ignore, as they appear to be doing.

As before too many on PH simply apply the flawed logic that whatever works for them in their particular circumstances is the only correct solution for every individual and organisation across the entire nation. Life's not like that, sorry to point that out.

[Robertj21a]

FiF said:

Aiui within the protocol agreed by the banks they made a commitment when considering branch closures to maintain some degree of cover between them. Not sure if it's a commitment precisely or simply something they would take into consideration, and then ignore, as they appear to be doing.

As before too many on PH simply apply the flawed logic that whatever works for them in their particular circumstances is the only correct solution for every individual and organisation across the entire nation. Life's not like that, sorry to point that out.

As i, and others, have mentioned throughout this thread, the Post Office can offer any of the services required by personal banking customers, usually cash/cheques in, payment of bills etc. There's really not a lot more that a bank branch can do for this group of customers.
The other solution, not popular in the UK, is to offer full personal banking services at an annual, or per transaction, fee - say, £200 per year or £5 a transaction.

[bad company]

FiF said:

As before too many on PH simply apply the flawed logic that whatever works for them in their particular circumstances is the only correct solution for every individual and organisation across the entire nation. Life's not like that, sorry to point that out.

Not sure that’s fair or accurate. There are big changes in banking. We ALL have to adapt.

[ChrisNic]

A certain Banks canteen in a very large city office only took cash until quite recently.....

[NRS]

Eric Mc said:

The problem is the modern ethos that PLCs only have one responsibility - and that is to their shareholders. Customers and society at large can go hang.

As I said - it stinks.

Are you willing to pay more for this? We have yearly payments to cover costs here in Norway. The UK has done more of a race to the cheapest - which results in paying less for stuff, but reduced quality overall.

[Eric Mc]

NRS said:

Are you willing to pay more for this? We have yearly payments to cover costs here in Norway. The UK has done more of a race to the cheapest - which results in paying less for stuff, but reduced quality overall.

If it resulted in a fairer system and retaining branches - yes.

[Zetec-S]

NRS said:

Are you willing to pay more for this? We have yearly payments to cover costs here in Norway. The UK has done more of a race to the cheapest - which results in paying less for stuff, but reduced quality overall.

I don't think it's a simple as charging people. Would a £10 per month fee (for example) really be enough to stop banks closing branches? I don't think so, they'd still be closing the smaller, less profitable branches.

[FiF]

bad company said:

FiF said:

As before too many on PH simply apply the flawed logic that whatever works for them in their particular circumstances is the only correct solution for every individual and organisation across the entire nation. Life's not like that, sorry to point that out.

Not sure that’s fair or accurate. There are big changes in banking. We ALL have to adapt.

Whilst I agree with the second and third parts of your post, re changes and adapting, disagree with the first part, it's a completely fair and accurate observation. Not just this thread either, it occurs time and again on all manner of subjects.

[anonymous-user]

I don't know if I am in the minority but I have not been to a bank for years. I don't own a cheque book and I cannot remember the last time I was actually given one. I pay for everything on my card and never carry cash, last time I took out £10 from an ATM it sat in my wallet for a month until I spent it to get rid of it.

I do everything using the online bank app on my phone, it is so much easier and convenient than having to use a bank. Even when I bought my last house, I arranged the mortgage over the phone, I never visited the bank (actually not sure if they even have physical branches)

I don't actually see why anybody would actually want or need to visit a bank branch anymore?

[FiF]

And my point is thus made, fairly and squarely.

[robinessex]

I'm surprised the supermarkets don't see an opportunity here. Open up kiosks for the main banks in their shops.

[Eric Mc]

Joey Deacon said:

I don't know if I am in the minority but I have not been to a bank for years. I don't own a cheque book and I cannot remember the last time I was actually given one. I pay for everything on my card and never carry cash, last time I took out £10 from an ATM it sat in my wallet for a month until I spent it to get rid of it.

I do everything using the online bank app on my phone, it is so much easier and convenient than having to use a bank. Even when I bought my last house, I arranged the mortgage over the phone, I never visited the bank (actually not sure if they even have physical branches)

I don't actually see why anybody would actually want or need to visit a bank branch anymore?

Nothing wrong with ANY of that - for you.

The fact that you took the time to make this post indicates that your thinking is "it's OK for me - why can't everybody be like me".

As FiF says - far too much of this type of "logic" expounded on PH at times.

[Eric Mc]

robinessex said:

I'm surprised the supermarkets don't see an opportunity here. Open up kiosks for the main banks in their shops.

Good point. It's worked for Post Offices.

[bad company]

Joey Deacon said:

I don't know if I am in the minority but I have not been to a bank for years. I don't own a cheque book and I cannot remember the last time I was actually given one. I pay for everything on my card and never carry cash, last time I took out £10 from an ATM it sat in my wallet for a month until I spent it to get rid of it.

I do everything using the online bank app on my phone, it is so much easier and convenient than having to use a bank. Even when I bought my last house, I arranged the mortgage over the phone, I never visited the bank (actually not sure if they even have physical branches)

I don't actually see why anybody would actually want or need to visit a bank branch anymore?

Yes, I think you are in a minority.

I have reason to visit a branch once or twice a year, the last time was to take in my mother’s death certificate and my id as executor. As I said there’s sometimes a good reason to visit rather than spend ages on the awful telephone system.

Cheques are still handy but used much less often. I believe they are still the only way to pay for Wimbledon tennis tickets from the ballot for example.