Barclays Bank Marple Branch

[Howard]

Sounds like it is back to sticking money in a sack under the bed. If banks won't do their job, which is serving customers face to face then what's the point of them? Unfortunately, wages and pensions seem to insist on people having a bank account.

Perhaps some alternative will come along and fill the gap left by the banks' abdication from their duties.

Can you show where the law says that a bank has a mandatory requirement to serve customers face to face? Banks are commercial entities and will do what's best for their shareholders, not for their customers. If the public needs a face to face banking service then a company will set one up and try to make money from it (hint...this won't happen, because there is no money at all in face to face banking) or an alternative needs to be found, which is what's already happened with the Post Office providing many banking services on behalf of the retail banks.

Alternatively move to a Building Society which is owned by its members, which is what it seems many people in Marple have done with Nationwide.

[Condate]

Sounds like it is back to sticking money in a sack under the bed. If banks won't do their job, which is serving customers face to face then what's the point of them? Unfortunately, wages and pensions seem to insist on people having a bank account.

Perhaps some alternative will come along and fill the gap left by the banks' abdication from their duties.

[Howard]

Why can't all the banks share a single premise, that way everyone can have branch banking, just not everyday.

Several reasons of the top of my head:
1) Because none of the big banks want branches any more, and if they do, they'd be in the centres of big cities and towns where they can get a lot of footfall. Marple is tiny by comparison. All the "new" banks (Mondo etc) are Internet only and have no branches at all. If you recall, First Direct did this YEARS ago as an experiment on behalf of Midland Bank (remember them?) as a telephone bank only.

2) The IT support would be unbelievably complex. Banking systems have significant requirements in terms of security, network separation, networking standards etc. The networking closet(s) would be huge and very expensive to support. The difficulty of getting the big banks to agree to this, whilst not insurmountable, would be considerable and probably not worth the ROI (to them).

3) There are alternatives to most common banking procedures, which is using a Post Office. I'd expect these services to be improved and streamlined over the next few years to accommodate corner-cases which aren't currently covered.

As an aside, I have been a NatWest customer for years, I was disappointed when it closed but I only ever went for two reasons...firstly to pay in dividend cheques in USD for which there is a £5 charge and  I wait until I have enough of them to make it worthwhile. Now I just post them to a central processing centre. Secondly to use their EXCELLENT change sorters which sort all the change, give you a chit which then pays the amount straight to my account. But I cant' remember the last time I actually used cash. I think I still have a pot on the sideboard containing our team's winnings from the last Marple Sports Club quiz (March 2020!). When they open again, we'll use it to pay for drinks until we win again.

Like it or not, branch banking is more or less dead along with many other high street branches. I remember BT shops, Norweb branches etc, all of which were killed off by remote banking (direct debit etc).

[mikes]

Why can't all the banks share a single premise, that way everyone can have branch banking, just not everyday.

[andy+kirsty]

We move to Nationwide about 5 years ago as they had a branch in Marple. (They still do BTW)

Since moving over we've been to the branch once or twice, their online and mobile service is so good there genuinely isn't a need to bother them in branch. We've even re-mortgaged online / via video.

It does make you wonder whether there should be a minimum level of service for banks for those who still need to pay in cash and can't use the internet and that the market shouldn't be able to dictate to this extent. There is a big difference between an SME closing one of a few branches and a multinational that made £2.4bn pre-tax last year. Barclay's could stand that loss if they wanted to provide the service to customers.


A

[Digster]

I think marple needs to move with the times. Barclays decision is purely financial, they're accountable to their shareholders and they're a financial institution! Why on earth would they reverse their decision?

I have to agree with Jimblob on this one.  Whilst it would be a shame for them to go, they are a business and looking at their original figures I can see their logic in shutting.  I know there are people who say that they/businesses use it but there just isn't enough of those to keep it open.  No business wants to stay open at a loss.   

[jimblob]

I think marple needs to move with the times. Barclays decision is purely financial, they're accountable to their shareholders and they're a financial institution! Why on earth would they reverse their decision?

[admin]

Wonderful trips, but getting back on topic.........

MP William Wragg has also set-up a petition to keep the bank open:

https://www.williamwragg.org.uk/campaigns/sign-williams-petition-save-last-bank-marple

[ROTHERS]

I think I depends what you are doing I recently, well sort of recently, went back to New Zealand I wanted to do that by train from Stockport to Istanbul stoping for a few days in various cities.  Then I the wanted to fly to Singapore have a few days there. Then fly to Sydney  two weeks there. Then on to Christchurch.  Have a car waiting for me  for seven weeks then have several trips booked for me whilst there. I much prefer a travel agent to do all that and book my hotels. However if I want a week in Gran Canaria or four days in say Berlin  I'll do that myself on line.

that trip sounds amazing. I did a 3 location trip to Florida in 2019, pick up at the airport in FL, hotel for 2 days including theme park tickets, a gig to see Adam Ant (dont ask), then car hire, house rental on the east coast, house rental on the west coast, several trips, flights including upgrades using airmiles, all booked myself. I do it myself as i enjoy doing it. I have only used a travel company once (via phone as they were based in Belfast) on a trip to Kenya/Seychelles, i only did that as Nairobi is not the most secure of places.

[Melancholyflower]

Barclays is but one of what, 5/7 (?) major highstreet banks.

Barclays own figures show it's just not sensible to have high street branches dedicated to one bank. If only there was somewhere that could theoretically handle banking business for multiple banks.......

Personally I think we'd all be better served if any campaigning effort went into expanding the banking services that the post office counters currently offer to Bank customers rather than flogging the dead horse that is high street banking.

It all depends on what you mean by a high street bank. If you mean a cash machine, basic cashier service, and the poor staff on commission to sell you all their non-lending products like insurance, then yes, they are a dead horse. On the other hand if you have dedicated lending advisers who actually have the power to make lending decisions, know their customers and  know their locality, then they are boon for the community.  Check out the Bank of Dave for an alternative view.

Business banking is also often overlooked in these debates. Especially those with high turnover of cash where a local branch is highly beneficial. Try to set up a business account remotely and you'll see what I mean.

In my view the centralising of lending at individual and business level which began around 20-30 years ago has been a sad development which inevitably led to this point. I don't think things are better as a result.

[wheels]

Same here regarding the Travel agent, been booking my own stuff for 20 years and i would never consider going in one to book.

I think I depends what you are doing I recently, well sort of recently, went back to New Zealand I wanted to do that by train from Stockport to Istanbul stoping for a few days in various cities.  Then I the wanted to fly to Singapore have a few days there. Then fly to Sydney  two weeks there. Then on to Christchurch.  Have a car waiting for me  for seven weeks then have several trips booked for me whilst there. I much prefer a travel agent to do all that and book my hotels. However if I want a week in Gran Canaria or four days in say Berlin  I'll do that myself on line.

[wheels]

Personally, I like a large number of people, would not consider using an Estate Agent, or a Travel agent who did not have a physical branch. There is absolutely no substitute for face to face communication. I have no objection to other means of contact; I'm an IT professional after all, but these are supplements and not replacements for reality.

I don't think a Travel or Estate agent is at all the same as a bank. Most people use a retail bank for simple fairly low level transactions,  paying cheques or cash in ect. These are not transactions of the same magnitude as buying a house or a holiday to say New Zealand. Most people now are more than happy to accept bank transfers or pay any cheques in via their smartphone.   In fact I can't imagine what  services of significance a small local bank could offer.  I suspect most people are no longer happy at handing over bits of paper with their account details and signiture on in any event and that the days of the cheque and probably cash is numbered,  limiting even more the value of littering our high street with these largely unused business.

[ROTHERS]

Couple of years ago a survey suggested 73% of people booked their last holiday online.
https://www.traveldailymedia.com/kayak-travel-agents-research/

I'm in my 40s.  The only time I've been in a travel agents as an adult was to get some foreign exchange.  I've never booked a holiday in a branch of a high street travel agent.  Nowadays it would never really occur to me to do so.  And that's because when I first started booking holidays as an adult, travel agents didn't really offer the kind of holiday I wanted.  It was easier to book direct.  That was in the early days of Expedia, before TripAdvisor.   Now I'd be even less likely to think Travel Agent.


As for estate agents, we bought our current house in 2016.  Compared to when we'd last bought (2004) when there was a huge amount of visiting branches, almost everything was done by email or phone rather than in the branch.  I think we popped in the agents office to pick up the keys and that was about it.  No one took us in a car anywhere - we met at the properties.  Most research was done online, and generally we emailed because we were living outside the area.  A branch is rather irrelevant when you're some miles away. I don't imagine estate agents will disappear from the high street any time soon - they will want local bases. But I didn't feel like the branch was in anyway essential to buying our house.

Same here regarding the Travel agent, been booking my own stuff for 20 years and i would never consider going in one to book.

[andrewbowden]

Personally, I like a large number of people, would not consider using an Estate Agent, or a Travel agent who did not have a physical branch. There is absolutely no substitute for face to face communication. I have no objection to other means of contact; I'm an IT professional after all, but these are supplements and not replacements for reality.

Couple of years ago a survey suggested 73% of people booked their last holiday online.
https://www.traveldailymedia.com/kayak-travel-agents-research/

I'm in my 40s.  The only time I've been in a travel agents as an adult was to get some foreign exchange.  I've never booked a holiday in a branch of a high street travel agent.  Nowadays it would never really occur to me to do so.  And that's because when I first started booking holidays as an adult, travel agents didn't really offer the kind of holiday I wanted.  It was easier to book direct.  That was in the early days of Expedia, before TripAdvisor.   Now I'd be even less likely to think Travel Agent.


As for estate agents, we bought our current house in 2016.  Compared to when we'd last bought (2004) when there was a huge amount of visiting branches, almost everything was done by email or phone rather than in the branch.  I think we popped in the agents office to pick up the keys and that was about it.  No one took us in a car anywhere - we met at the properties.  Most research was done online, and generally we emailed because we were living outside the area.  A branch is rather irrelevant when you're some miles away. I don't imagine estate agents will disappear from the high street any time soon - they will want local bases. But I didn't feel like the branch was in anyway essential to buying our house.

[Condate]

"Not having a branch means a bank is useless" - hmm, First Direct do not have a branch, i have been with them for 2 years, excellent phone service and you can put cheques in via the App. I applied for a saving account online (took me 30minutes in branch at Nationwide a couple of years ago).
The traditional banks do not care if you leave, i left Lloyds after almost 30 years, not a single acknowledgment.
I place Banks in the same slot as Estate Agents and Travel agents having a branch, there is no business benefit whatsoever.

Personally, I like a large number of people, would not consider using an Estate Agent, or a Travel agent who did not have a physical branch. There is absolutely no substitute for face to face communication. I have no objection to other means of contact; I'm an IT professional after all, but these are supplements and not replacements for reality.