Cash Machine Withdraw Fees..

Do they banks still cross charge each over internally ?

Does that cover trips which are paid for by means other than the banks cards ?

(a lot of Bank Travel Insurance doesn't).

Who fills them isn't the issue, it's what they're filled with.

If shops fill them to save on banking fees, it will ipso facto be with used notes. However, in my experience as a user of bank's own machines, the notes they spew out aren't new either.

I would guess so, The HSBC "Bank Plus" account also includes annual worldwide travel insurance and there is no requirement at all to pay for any of the travel through HSBC. It's a full-blown annual travel insurance policy pretty similar to one you would buy, it even includes up to 21 days winter sports insurance per year.

I think you may be referring to some credit cards which offer travel insurance when you use the card to book your holiday, this sort of travel insurance is quite limited.

Efficiency? In terms of what? Number of notes the hoppers can hold, or the speed with which they can be counted out?

A potential problem with new notes is that they adhere quite well to each other, and you'd think that the machine would be more likely than with old notes to give out two thinking (I use the term loosely) it's one.

Do you have any info about how often this happens?

Why can't they be machine sorted? When paying in cash over the counter, the cashiers either count them by hand, so might as well pick out the dodgy ones while they're at it, which'll be cheaper than putting them through a separate sorting stage; or else they bung the whole pile of notes into a counting machine, which rips through them (occasionally literally, I dare say) at a rate of about ten a second. If these machines can recognise the notes, it can't be that much more difficult to recognise their quality.

At the simplest level, one could say that if a note won't jam the counting machine, it won't jam the dispensing machine either. It's just a question of making the counting machine more jam-prone, driving the cashiers up the wall because the bloody things keep jamming. Cheaper to count them by hand....

That's a pretty poor excuse for negative progress. It's a bit like saying that post-secondary education standards going to the dogs is acceptable because we're putting more cattle through the system.

I see what you mean. I did not read that intent into it, I thought they would just bung the whole lot in without having checked them. Of course the convenience to shoppers of having such a machine in the shop is that many of the notes from the machine will end up getting re-spent in the shop itself. That in turn means that innocent customers won't actually suffer any disadvantage from getting dud notes from the machine. The machine might as well dispense Bank of Toyland (Tescobank?) money (shopping vouchers specific to the store).

More's the pity. I can remember ATMs dispensing one-pound notes.

Not for the ATM provided by a private company in a petrol station, say, which is where I thought this conversation started , and which looks a lot less substantial than the ones in a bank, hence my comment on the cost. Strange, I dont recall a usenet conversation going OT before.

In message , Ronald Raygun writes

yes

olus - counting accuracy and note jams (*)

That is why the provedure each batch of notes to be thoroughly loosened like a a cardstar would bend a pack of new cards.

Not if the proper procedure is followed. * = in many machines notes are counted twice and if a discrepancy arises then the dispense is suspended, the potentially wrong notes are ditched into a reject bin and the count starts again. The rejected notes are no longer able to be dispensed until a reload.

The final error rate is miniscule. For latest machines operated by the main banks the number of times the till doesnt balance is, er, hmmm, I cant remember it happening.

No, I remember it happened in Chorley in about 1985, but we knew which transaction it was because the machine marked it as a potential miscount.

There is probably a machine to do it these days.

That was the way it used to be done.

If only life were as you seem to think. Lets think of a pile of 5000 notes. That would take a typical high street cashier a long long time to accumulate enough surplus notes of the right quality. Some branches are net receivers of cash, others net dispensers. Surplus cash is kept to an absolute minimum, not for security, but holding surplus cash is very expensive over a whole branch network so accumulating £100k is quite expensive. Notes come in form all directions but the big money comes in via the cash centres where they are held and sent to branches only on the day they are needed.

True, how often have a seen a note counting machine used for paying out? If you have you will know that the notes are either in a precounted pack (so the machine merely checks them) or they are counted twice. On pay in, they need only be counted once because the customer tells the cashier how much dosh is there. There are often miscounts in which the cashier outs them through again. This is why ATMs count twice, and if there is an error the dispense rejects them This reject isnt acceptable other than occasionally.

:-)

In message , Miss L. Toe writes

I no longer have up to date info on that.

In message , Miss L. Toe writes

Thats correct.

What I meant was even during a period of new note moratorium, they are sometimes still available via ATMs.

I can remember putting them in the things!

In message , Miss L. Toe writes

Yes. otherwise it woudnt be worth having.

Hmm, do you think there are any guiness voucher ATMs?

In message , Mark Goodge writes

Could it possibly be those who know they are being fleeced but they decide £2 is worth it to save the hassle of going to a free one?

In message , Mark Goodge writes

My point was that the cost is not effective for the shop keeper to pay for it, but the machine operator gets a profit because they get the £2.

Only when the supplier is the Bank, not a private operator.

It doesnt show.

If the shop is getting sufficient extra trade as a result of the presence of the machine, then that is where the shop profit comes from.

No; the benefit to the operator is the same. Whether or not the bank gets any benefit is a separate issue - at busy places like supermarkets, then the brand awareness is valuable enough to justify carrying part or all of the cost of installation and maintenance, whereas it may not be at smaller establishments. But the value to the shop operator is the same in both large and small shops: the presence of a cash machine increases both customer numbers and customer spend.

Mark

In message , Mark Goodge writes

Er,, yes, but only if the shop doesnt pay for the installation. If the shop pays the installer then it could only be a nominal amount. If the shop paid the full cost then it would not vet a return.

You continue to confuse the two basic types. 1) Bank supplied and operated ATMs and 2) Private operator ATMs.

It would get a return even with the full cost of installation if the increased profit as a result of additional trade was enough to cover the cost of installation.

I'm not confusing the two. I'm disregarding the difference, in this context, as can be seen from my statement that "whether the bank gets any benefit is a separate issue".

Indeed. For the machine to benefit the bank, it has to be a high-usage installation in order to justify the cost to the bank of providing it. But this is different to the benefit to the shop operator, which is essentially about the additonal income received as a result of having the machine on their premises.

Apart from the fact that at least one of the leading suppliers of small ATMs is a division of one of the large banks. So that particular bank is getting a benefit from them, albeit a different kind of benefit to the ones suplies under their own name at supermarkets.

Mark