I see the banks are saying good they are being to customers by installing more free atm's in areas that dont currently have them. This is purely due the banks being socially concerned of course and nothing to do with banks about to announce another set of record breaking profits again this week.
Nice PR spin. They probably closed their branches in those areas a few years ago. So much for "social concern".
Now tell my daughter to stop using that A&L ATM which charges £1.75 to
withdraw £10 - when there is a free ATM 100 yards away. (McDonald's, A6 , Stockport. Milking the lazy or financially challenged is a nice little earner.)
Where I am, there is a McDonalds/A&L fee charging machine about 3 meters away from a free Woolwich machine, and about 10 meters in the other direction from a free Sainsburys machine.
I think fee charging ATMs have a benefit in that they encorage people to use cards for transactions instead of faffing around with cash and counting out little pieces of outdated metal & paper.
If this is a troll, then I bite. How can charging a fee encourage anyone? These machines were installed to save the banks money by allowing them to close their branches, so they should give out the cash at a discount.
Aah, I have just seen your point. They are trying to DIScourage you from using the machines.
"Faffing around" with cash is usually a lot quicker than faffing around with cards. Our local supermarket used to have a "cash only" 10-items lane, which I'd use even if the queue was longer than the other 10-items lanes because people got through so much quicker.
He didn't say machines, he said cards. For transactions. Taking money out of a machine isn't [deemed] a transaction.
The point was that it ENcourages people to use cards for paying for goods directly, instead of using them at machines to get cash to be used for paying for goods.
No, you don't have to do that anyway, or at least not as often.
The whole point of payment cards is that you need to carry less cash about your person, to minimise the risk of getting mugged at all (muggers size you up and decide you're a card-not-cash person and so don't bother), and to minimise your loss even if you do get mugged.
It still makes sense to set yourself a limit of how much cash to have on you (or indeed in the house). That means that the more you spend on routine stuff like supermarket shopping and car fuel, the more often you have to re-fill your wallet.
I tend to have less than £50 in my wallet. On most supermarket visits I spend more than that.
I get cash out of the machine only about half a dozen times a year, most of my needs are met by keeping some of the church collection money. One of the treasurer's perks.
On the contrary. C&P is slower than signing. It takes about the same length of time to actually sign as to press 5 keys. Say 2 seconds. But with C&P you first have to take care to position yourself properly, and there is a delay while the on-line authorisation happens. Say 10 seconds. Then, when signing, there's the time to print out the chit (2 seconds) and for the operator to compare your signature (2 seconds).
So I reckon signing is 6 seconds faster. Either way, there's not a lot in it.
At 15:21:32 on 31/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:
Nonsense.
More nonsense. The on-line authorisation is nothing to do with the cardholder verification; in fact, depending on your issuer and the merchant's acquirer, the transactions may be more likely to go online if you *are* signing since they deem it less secure. And at larger establishments who are IP enabled the online time is less than a second in any case.
And the time for online authorisation and, as you say, for the slip to have been printed and handed to you to start with, then you find a pen, realise it doesn't work properly, find a suitable surface to write on, etc.
Authorisation method being equal, there should be no particular difference between the two methods. With Tesco estimating every 1 second delay at checkout costing them £1m per day, for instance, I can't see them accepting a £6m per day hit for implementing EMV.
IME only if you buy a meal. There is no way an average pub which doesn't serve food is going to take a card for a round of drinks at 9pm on a Saturday night.
They'll insist on a tab, but they'll generally have no problem doing it, it's pretty rare to find a city pub or a pub that normally does food that won't accept a tab.
Well they've never bothered with me - and I usually get 200 out of the cashpoint on every visit. One visit a month usually suffices.
It's not worth worrying about unless you frequent dodgy areas. Besides the less cash you have on you the more likely they are to get violent or march you to a cashpoint as knifepoint.... As my friend in New York was advised - always make sure you have a bit of cash for the muggers.
IIRC my house insurance covers loss of up to 300 in cash, including outside the house...
That's another thing. If you get large amounts out, the machine gives you mostly 20s and perhaps two 10s (or three if you're lucky and ask for an amount not divisible by 20). I don't like such big notes. But there again, if you use them for high value purchases, they're not a problem. I prefer fivers.
Any loss, or only loss by theft? What if I visit JB in Blackpool and while buying a £5 ice cream on the pier a gust of wind blows away all the rest of my Scottish fivers into the sea?
What do you mean? Accusing me of stealing? That's deformation of character, that is. Please send me £50k compensation straight away. I didn't think it needed to be mentioned that I write a cheque for what I keep.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.