[OT] What is this country coming to?

Yes but probably not to you.

At a guess, a few quid. Or do you think the bank personel work there for free?

In message , hummingbird writes

NO, that is NOT a banks business for personal clients. This is the root of your mistake. Cash Exchange is generally not what a bank wants to do and very many banks and most building societies will not exchange cash. If they do it for one then they have to do it for all. Have you ever been in a queue at a bank in the past when somebody in front comes in with a moneybox full of mixed coin and had to wait ages whilst it was exchanged for notes? Cash transmission and exchange is a business that banks would rather not have any part of. It costs them an arm and a leg to hold cash.

They have to have one rule for everybody.

All irrelevant.

It is eventually in the customer's interest too.

But by going to the counter after having used other ATM it has cost the bank more than if you had just gone to counter in the first place!. ATMs cost huge wodges of dosh you know and the cost to the bank of holding cash is the same whether it is in an ATM or a cashiers till.

But you DIDNT, what you wanted will have cost them more.

You seem to have a skewed view of how banks work.

I do not know how much you have in your account but a bank generally loses money on most personal accounts until the client buys something else. Plastic cards, ATMs, & cheque books, statements, standing orders and DD, cheque and credit clearing all cost money.

For a bank to make a wodge of dosh on the interest it obtains form lending the money you have in your current account or typical savings account you need to have many £ks in that account *all* the time. I suspect the bank is losing money on you.

Of course they don't, but the bimbo was sat there at her till .... she would have been paid anyway. Get a life !

In message , Stephen Glynn writes

Generally, (I can only be sure of this up to a few years ago) most ATMs have two stacks of dosh inside. Originally, both stacks of fivers. Then it became tens and fivers, then just tens and then 20s and tenners. The actual number of notes in each stack is the same.

The algorithm that decides what denomination you require doesnt work on the principle of giving everything bar one or two from the 'high side' and one from the 'low side' because the high side will obviously run out way before the low side. So the combination of notes dispensed is decided by the amount of dosh being withdrawn in the transaction and the amount of dosh left in each of the two stacks.

In message , hummingbird writes

Sop how do you explain HSBCs operation in Northern Ireland then? And Cater Allen in UK? And Egg? Etc.,

Ok, then (see my other post) this means you will need to have £10k in your account *all the time* before the bank makes any dosh on you.

'Indeirectly' means reduced interest etc.,, 'directly' means a direct charge to your account.

In return for what?

Nuff said there then.

Yes you are. You are asking for a cash withdrawal and cash exchange service.

No a bimbo actually (to use language a hothead like you would understand). Have I ever seen you on 'Airline' arguing with the easyjet staff?

Yes he can because, he said, he also has other accounts which are not internet-only.

Well, he has both, but I guess the money he wanted happened to be in the wrong account. I suppose he could have transferred it online to his other account, then withdrawn it OTC. But I gusess he didn't have his terminal with him, so he did the next best thing. Why he didn't just agree to putting the twenties into one of his other accounts and then immediately taking out tenners again, as the teller suggested, is beyond me.

Incidentally, why should "internet only" accounts be cheaper than normal accounts? Most normal accounts are free, and you can't get much cheaper than that.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 11:55:34 GMT, Stephen Glynn mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

Probably both. They (and it's not just banks) will often claim that this or that requirement is to comply with the law or banking regulations whatever, whereas the truth is that they have interpreted the laws in their own way and then 'blame' any bureaucracy onto government. I have often found that so-called legal requirements are nothing of the sort.

The Air Passenger Duty is a classic example. Most ticket agents including airlines themselves will charge you this tax at the point of purchase and tell you "it's the law". It isn't. As one HMC&E person who was personally involved in this new tax told me soon after its introduction: "it becomes accountable to us by the airlines at the point an aircraft leaves the tarmac and there is no legal requirement for airlines to charge you the tax when buying the ticket. In fact they don't have to charge you the tax at all if they choose to cover the costs themselves."

The problem is that the rules get set by high management and the lower down staff are 'told what to say' if anybody asks.

A fairer time to charge the tax would be at check-in time. This would avoid travellers providing interest free loans to airlines of up to one year and would also mean that if the tax was reduced or abolished before your travel date, you wouldn't need to pay it. Refunds after payment are virtually impossible to get; airlines come out with another load of tripe.

Also, we have recently heard stories of shops demanding to know a person's name/address when buying cellphones and being told "it's the law now". It isn't. You can still buy a new PAYG cellphone anonymously if you wish and the shop is co-operative. I did so a couple of days ago.

The banks ought to introduce procedures which meet legal requirements, not exceed them imv. Many legal requirements are a PITA for customers and banks should realise this. Does that answer your Q?

At least they usually have notices which say ~"ID may be asked for in case of doubt". That's reasonable.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 11:48:26 +0000 (UTC), "Tim" mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

I never said otherwise, idiot.

And exactly what do you think he will do Mr Smarty? You will have to demonstrate to the bank/onbudsman to their satisfaction how someone got hold of your PIN without your permission. That would be difficult. You are required to take reasonable precautions to protect your PIN and that includes preventing others from watching you using it.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 11:51:02 +0000 (UTC), "Tim" mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

Such words of wisdom.

In message , Ronald Raygun writes

Internet accounts generally pay more credit interest.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:03:05 +0000, Gordon mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

It would appear to me that you don't know what you're talking about. Of course I'm known. If you read my earlier posts you might have noticed that the bimbo said "I've only been here for a few months". She clearly didn't know me and was just following orders.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 11:27:43 -0000, "Comfortably Numb" mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

That would certainly make the point but they may have another rule preventing immediate w/d of deposited funds! They might also think I was money-laundering.

The bank don't allow the account I used to perform OTC transactions (only Internet and ATM).

I mentioned elsewhere in the thread that converting my w/d into 4-5 ATM transactions may have triggered off some other security feature (like retaining the card over Xmas), so I was wary of doing it as this would have forced me to use another account which charges me 1.5% commission to w/d my own cash! Also there's the issue of causing annoyance to other users waiting to use the ATM.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:16:51 -0000, "Tumbleweed" mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

So why are you wasting valuable bandwidth with your tripe?

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

In the sense that the "cost" is *negative* for both (zero fees, but interest paid) - but more negative for the internet a/c (as more interest is paid)...?!

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:18:13 -0000, "Tumbleweed" mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

It took the bimbo ~5 seconds to take my £20 notes and put them into her drawers and pull out £10 notes and hand them to me. Please explain how this cost the bank "a few quid".

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 11:47:51 +0000, Gordon mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

Indeed. I wouldn't want folks to get bored over Christmas!

Funny, I've never noticed that. Maybe I should refuse to use ATMs in future and complain to the bank for lack of security (which comes down to them saving money and making even greater profits).

Sadly the account I used doesn't allow this option and visiting supermarkets is something I only do rarely.

They're probably glad to get rid of them. Less counting.

Now I think of it, I was wearing a coat with a turned up collar.

Can't say but run your passport under it sometime...

lol.

"hummingbird" wrote

Eh?! You said (see above) "you'll have one helluva problem..." I said (see above) "you can claim ... No problem!".

They are very different!

"hummingbird" wrote

He will look at the facts and if he decides in your favour, will instruct the bank accordingly (which will be binding on the bank). If he finds against you, you can still take it to court (Ombudsmans decision is not binding on the consumer).

"hummingbird" wrote

They may have guessed it - it *will* happen on a few occasions.

If you can show that you were elsewhere, and there is no other evidence suggesting that you may have been complicit in the fraud, it is in the bank's own Banking Code that you are not held liable!

"hummingbird" wrote

You are also required, in the normal course of using the C+P card, to enter your PIN into any PIN pad requested at a retailer. That necessarily exposes the PIN to the risk of dodgy equipment recording all PINs entered...

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 13:42:51 +0000 (UTC), "Tim" mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

Yes I know what I *wrote*. In case you have problems reading full sentences, here's what I actually *wrote*: "you'll have one helluva problem claiming it wasn't you or someone you gave the PIN to..."

Yes I know what you *wrote* but it was based upon a clip of my earlier comment which you used to concoct a different meaning.

You seem to be getting confused over the use of the word "claim". Perhaps it makes more sense if the word 'claiming' is replaced by "proving" or "demonstrating" in my original post.

And exactly what facts might exist except that someone has used your card and PIN and you claim it wasn't you. Prove it.

I'm sure that no bank or ombudsman would accept that unless there are other circumstances in your favour ...which escape me.

I don't believe so. Afaik you're referring to Internet purchases; many banks offer customers protection against fraudulent use. PINs are not used on the Internet, only for cash w/ds and shops.

That you may provide evidence of your whereabouts at the time in no way proves that you didn't allow another person to use the card/PIN and that you took reasonable precautions to protect your card/PIN.

Having said that, if the amount is small the bank *might* write it off in the interests of good customer relations but may also reduce your credit limit to protect themselves.

You will have to provide evidence of faulty kit to the bank/ombudsman to succeed on this.