Natwest considering closing Ulster Bank in the ROI

jj880 · 02-03-2021 2:59pm

I doubt a customer would be happy if a bank decided to move them to a fixed rate from 2 years ago.

JTMan · 02-03-2021 3:09pm

silver2020 wrote: »

There is a break fee formula in the terms and condition. If UB are told to change this, then why can't they change other terms and conditions? and tell someone with a tracker that its gone?

Nobody is changing the T&C's for break fees.

The T&C's give Ulster Bank the right but not the obligation to charge break fees.

It seems Ulster Bank will waive that right to charge break fees.

I suspect that Charlie is right on this. From speaking to Ulster Bank I got a very clear impression that waiving break fees will happen at a later stage.

Customers who don't want their mortgage sold to permanent tsb or whichever bank it is sold to, should have a right to switch without penalty.

Sheep Shagger · 02-03-2021 7:53pm

JTMan wrote: »

Customers who don't want their mortgage sold to permanent tsb or whichever bank it is sold to, should have a right to switch without penalty.

Why should they though?

If you are on a fixed rate it doesn't matter who owns your mortgage, as long as you keep your end of the deal (make repayments on time) then its BAU.

I prefer Charlie Weston to the waste of space that is Conor Pope but think he's way off the mark here....Time will tell I guess.

Jim2007 · 02-03-2021 8:53pm

JTMan wrote: »

Nobody is changing the T&C's for break fees.

The T&C's give Ulster Bank the right but not the obligation to charge break fees.

It seems Ulster Bank will waive that right to charge break fees.

I suspect that Charlie is right on this. From speaking to Ulster Bank I got a very clear impression that waiving break fees will happen at a later stage.

Customers who don't want their mortgage sold to permanent tsb or whichever bank it is sold to, should have a right to switch without penalty.

The reality is that none of these people are going to be in the room when the decision is made. Nor will they have any influence on the decision makers.

UB are closing down and beyond complying with the requirements of their banking license, they have no interest in maintaining a relationship with the regulator. The objective for UB is to return the maximum amount of capital to the parent company, decimating the value of the loan book by allowing borrowers to walk is not inline with that objective.

As adults we assume that borrowers were happy to enter into the contracts they signed up to and were willing to accept the terms and conditions offered. As none of those terms will change, there is no justification for people to expect that they should be able to breach their contract without penalty just because they feel like it.

I expect it will come down to the numbers involved in the end. If it is a small number the change of fees are small. If however the feels a major block of the loan book will walk, there is a good chance fees will be charged.

Q&A · 03-03-2021 12:43am

Jim2007 wrote: »

As adults we assume that borrowers were happy to enter into the contracts they signed up to and were willing to accept the terms and conditions offered. As none of those terms will change, there is no justification for people to expect that they should be able to breach their contract without penalty just because they feel like it..

Spot on, I couldn't agree more. The only problem is when it comes to mortgages we as a country have moved so far away from personal responsibility.

We're the people who didn't know what a tracker mortgage was not too mention where every one was mis-sold mortgages. "No one ever told me I had to pay it back or if I didn't they'd try and take the keys off me" has been heard time and again. So our approach is to come up with a system that avoids repossessions - great for a small number of households but bad for banks and the rest of Irish households.

The CBI leaning on Ulster to wave break fees only reinforces the view Ireland is toxic when it comes to lending.

gomamochi1 · 03-03-2021 1:09am

cruisey1987 wrote: »

I looked at Avant a while back and was put off by their early repayment limit. They only allow an overpayment of 1% during the fixed term. UB allow 10% per year, very valuable if you're in a position to put extra money into your mortgage

Also avant only cover urban centres and wont loan to people living in 16 rural counties as I was informed today by a broker for avant. Though I reckon it may change once ub leave the market.

poolfandar · 04-03-2021 11:22pm

Got a mortgage redemption figure today, 2.5 years into 5 year fixed at 2.95, €2778 breakage fee!

Sheep Shagger · 04-03-2021 11:42pm

poolfandar wrote: »

Got a mortgage redemption figure today, 2.5 years into 5 year fixed at 2.95, €2778 breakage fee!

Presumably it won't be worth you moving as any saving wouldn't make up that break fee?

poolfandar · 05-03-2021 12:47am

Yeah be no point at this stage, hopefully when they're selling their loan book the might waive the fees!

Sheep Shagger wrote: »

Presumably it won't be worth you moving as any saving wouldn't make up that break fee?

lawred2 · 05-03-2021 10:10am

poolfandar wrote: »

Got a mortgage redemption figure today, 2.5 years into 5 year fixed at 2.95, €2778 breakage fee!

they have been a bit of an outlier in the Irish market for a while now

We've exited both BOI and PTSB in recent years without any break fee.. I believe AIB are the same

05-03-2021 10:16am

lawred2 wrote: »

they have been a bit of an outlier in the Irish market for a while now

We've exited both BOI and PTSB in recent years without any break fee.. I believe AIB are the same

Did they both just ignore their published break fee calculators? How far were you into the fixed term?

Q&A · 05-03-2021 10:32am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Did they both just ignore their published break fee calculators? How far were you into the fixed term?

I've never heard of a bank ignoring a break fee. I have heard of plenty of situations where the break fee calculation are zero.

Sheep Shagger · 05-03-2021 10:50am

Q&A wrote: »

I've never heard of a bank ignoring a break fee. I have heard of plenty of situations where the break fee calculation are zero.

Is usually based on cost of funds at the time.

If it's in the banks interest to get out of a fixed rate they'll waive any fees...if its going to cost then then they'll apply the break fee. This is why I can't see Ulster Bank giving a blanket 'its free to exit all fixed rates'.

Of course paying a break fee can still be worth it in the long run depending on what rate you are moving too (or if you can afford to repay in full early!).

Always worth asking.

lawred2 · 05-03-2021 10:51am

Deleted User wrote: »

Did they both just ignore their published break fee calculators? How far were you into the fixed term?

actually you're right - I misread my UB contract. I thought they weren't using that calculator at all.

My contract says "break fee is 6 months interest"

But further down I've noticed it also says "or the early redemption charge whichever is lower..."

That must be the calculator

In both cases that we did exit - I was less than half the way through the fixed rate term

Nobotty · 05-03-2021 10:58am

poolfandar wrote: »

Got a mortgage redemption figure today, 2.5 years into 5 year fixed at 2.95, €2778 breakage fee!

You'd be better off waiting the 2.5 years as Ulsterwill be that long and more winding down

Question,and apologies if its been asked already,can you transfer your business to the nearest branch if its actoss the border? Including the mortgage

lawred2 · 05-03-2021 11:01am

Nobotty wrote: »

You'd be better off waiting the 2.5 years as Ulsterwill be that long and more winding down

Question,and apologies if its been asked already,can you transfer your business to the nearest branch if its actoss the border? Including the mortgage

Well not necessarily - that break fee will decrease over time.. At some point it can make sense financially to take the hit.

Might even make sense now to that poster.

Sheep Shagger · 05-03-2021 11:01am

Nobotty wrote: »

Question,and apologies if its been asked already,can you transfer your business to the nearest branch if its actoss the border? Including the mortgage

No - different legal entities (and currencies), essentially two different banks.

05-03-2021 11:24am

Q&A wrote: »

I've never heard of a bank ignoring a break fee. I have heard of plenty of situations where the break fee calculation are zero.

Looking at the formula used by my provider (EBS) I don't see how the calculation would be ever zero except towards the end of the fixed rate term.

loyatemu · 05-03-2021 11:25am

poolfandar wrote: »

Yeah be no point at this stage, hopefully when they're selling their loan book the might waive the fees!

what's your LTV?

KBC are paying 3K to switchers and have a 2.25% 3 year rate, you should be able to get the legal end done for a grand if you shop around.

Q&A · 05-03-2021 3:06pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Looking at the formula used by my provider (EBS) I don't see how the calculation would be ever zero except towards the end of the fixed rate term.

My break free had steadily increased over the last 18 months. The increase in break free is due to reductions in interbank rates.

I'm not sure what the EBS calculation says. lenders are required to only charge a break free equivalent to the cost they face due to the early repayment. If interbank rates/ funding costs have gone down since you borrowed you'll have a charge. If they have gone up the break free should be zero.

The following does a much better job of explaining it:

https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/understanding-fixed-rates-breakage-costs.204427/

Basically what the interbank rate was on the day you took out your loan versus today's rate will decide your break fee today.

So unless people have the exact same fixed rate mortgage (start date, term and break date) any personal experience discussed here are not directly comparable.

kalych · 06-03-2021 11:06pm

silver2020 wrote: »

Do you know their "cost of funds" rate at the beginning of the fixed rate and their "cost of funds" rate today? - Its a very specific rate and I don't think EBS publish it

Ulster do publish it
Ulster Bank cost of funds rate last Thursday was 0.51%
Oct 1st 2020 it was 0.39%

The 0.51% looks to be a 3 year high,
https://digital.ulsterbank.ie/business/loans-and-finance/loan/historic-cost-of-funds.html

so there should be no breakage fee to break a fixed rate that was taken out in the last 3 years. - That is this week's scenario. (rate is up 6 points from 0.45% since 21st Jan)

Cost of funds is only part of the total costs. There's also cost of risk(including credit, basis point and liquidity, ), cost of operations, regulatory levies and reg. capital requirements, plus banking license costs to name just a few. I love how people pluck a figure out of the financial report and run with their version of the story.

If UL are making so much money, why have they decided to withdraw so?

uberwolf · 06-03-2021 11:10pm

kalych wrote: »

Cost of funds is only part of the total costs. There's also cost of risk(including credit, basis point and liquidity, ), cost of operations, regulatory levies and reg. capital requirements, plus banking license costs to name just a few. I love how people pluck a figure out of the financial report and run with their version of the story.

If UL are making so much money, why have they decided to withdraw so?

that may be true, but to break a fixed rate it is only the cost of funds that is factored in to the break fee

Timing belt · 07-03-2021 12:19am

kalych wrote: »

Cost of funds is only part of the total costs. There's also cost of risk(including credit, basis point and liquidity, ), cost of operations, regulatory levies and reg. capital requirements, plus banking license costs to name just a few. I love how people pluck a figure out of the financial report and run with their version of the story.

If UL are making so much money, why have they decided to withdraw so?

If it is a fixed rate mortgage there should be no basis risk unless the bank decided to run a unmatched book and if it does then the risk should be covered by its interest rate risk policy.

Any liquidity cost should be accounted for and allocated appropriately at a product level along with the operating costs of the business and the credit risk premium when setting the Margin for the loan.

The reason Ulster bank are not making money is mainly down to the capital it needs to hold because of the risks they took back in 07/08 and because they don't have the volume to remain profitable for their operating model. The alterative would be to invest in the operating model to make it more low cost and streamlined but Natwest obviously thought that this was not worth the investment and the funds could be used better elsewhere in the Bank.

kalych · 07-03-2021 1:58am

Timing belt wrote: »

If it is a fixed rate mortgage there should be no basis risk unless the bank decided to run a unmatched book and if it does then the risk should be covered by its interest rate risk policy.

Any liquidity cost should be accounted for and allocated appropriately at a product level along with the operating costs of the business and the credit risk premium when setting the Margin for the loan.

The reason Ulster bank are not making money is mainly down to the capital it needs to hold because of the risks they took back in 07/08 and because they don't have the volume to remain profitable for their operating model. The alterative would be to invest in the operating model to make it more low cost and streamlined but Natwest obviously thought that this was not worth the investment and the funds could be used better elsewhere in the Bank.

All valid points...in theory. Have little to do with reality. The reason UL is not making money is not Capital costs. Capital allocation is merely ineffective, as they'd rather deploy that capital in the UK where they can get a better return. They're not 'losing' money per se by holding capital, just missing out on making more money.

The reason UL are losing money is tracker mortgages and the cost of remaining competitive (it costs and lower rates) which (trackers) leads to my initial point about basis risk. Banks don't really price basis risk at facility level, so if you've basis risk in trackers due to inability to adjust their pricing in line with real costs, you've basis risk on the entire book. You try to mitigate it with new lending, but will not eliminate it until trackers are off the book fully.

I don't really understand your point on product level allocation of risk? What if you mispriced it previously? Does it just disappear or do you think banks try to recover it's costs by other means for the backbook?

kalych · 07-03-2021 2:12am

uberwolf wrote: »

that may be true, but to break a fixed rate it is only the cost of funds that is factored in to the break fee

This is true, shouldn't Boards in the evening as I misread your post completely. My apologies.

Timing belt · 07-03-2021 2:29am

kalych wrote: »

All valid points...in theory. Have little to do with reality. The reason UL is not making money is not Capital costs. Capital allocation is merely ineffective, as they'd rather deploy that capital in the UK where they can get a better return. They're not 'losing' money per se by holding capital, just missing out on making more money.

It costs the bank money to hold Capital so yes they are losing out on money. It is not just about missing out on making more money. If the bank issue AT1 they will need to pay a coupon to attract investors, If they are holding retained earnings then they need to hold cash/bonds at a negative rate so they are loosing money.

The reason UL are losing money is tracker mortgages and the cost of remaining competitive (it costs and lower rates) which (trackers) leads to my initial point about basis risk. Banks don't really price basis risk at facility level, so if you've basis risk in trackers due to inability to adjust their pricing in line with real costs, you've basis risk on the entire book. You try to mitigate it with new lending, but will not eliminate it until trackers are off the book fully.

The trackers will lower the NIM but are not the reason for losses. The costs of operating are to high and they are unable to cut these costs without significant investment and are very unlikely to return any profit in the low interest rate environment. They are not the only bank in Europe with this issue.

I don't really understand your point on product level allocation of risk? What if you mispriced it previously? Does it just disappear or do you think banks try to recover it's costs by other means for the backbook?

My point is that bank will price customer lending based on Risk. If they calculate the risk incorrectly then they may make losses. How bank decides to price this risk will be down to the risk models they have deployed and the level of risk the Board are willing to accept. Back in 07/08 Ulster took onboard a lot of risk and are still paying the price today by having to hold more capital.

silver2020 · 07-03-2021 11:08am

kalych wrote: »

Cost of funds is only part of the total costs. There's also cost of risk(including credit, basis point and liquidity, ), cost of operations, regulatory levies and reg. capital requirements, plus banking license costs to name just a few. I love how people pluck a figure out of the financial report and run with their version of the story.

If UL are making so much money, why have they decided to withdraw so?

uberwolf wrote: »

that may be true, but to break a fixed rate it is only the cost of funds that is factored in to the break fee

kalych wrote: »

This is true, shouldn't Boards in the evening as I misread your post completely. My apologies.

I think we're all wrong.

In their example it takes Jan 2014 & Jan 2015. there was only 0.1 difference in the published Cost of Funds, yet 1.13% difference in the figure they used.

This was a time when the new capital reserves regulations came in, which were lower than previously, (explaining the 1.13% difference that year) but still on average over twice eu average, so I suspect there is a different calculation of "mortgage cost of funds" in the inner workings of the banks.

uberwolf · 07-03-2021 6:09pm

silver2020 wrote: »

I think we're all wrong.

In their example it takes Jan 2014 & Jan 2015. there was only 0.1 difference in the published Cost of Funds, yet 1.13% difference in the figure they used.

This was a time when the new capital reserves regulations came in, which were lower than previously, (explaining the 1.13% difference that year) but still on average over twice eu average, so I suspect there is a different calculation of "mortgage cost of funds" in the inner workings of the banks.

I'm not sure what figure you're referring to - I.e where you're seeing 1.13%. In had a quick look back through the thread and didn't catch it. But the CRR is not your answer

The essential is that notionally the bank borrows money from the interbank market to lend to you. Say for 5 years. So the prevailing 5 year rate on that day is A. If after 2 years you want to break then the bank has to place your money back on the market - this time at the prevailing 3 year rate so that there is no maturity mismatch. The 3 year rate is B. The difference between the two is the basis of your break fee, unless B is higher than A. Yield curve shenanigans can mean that short term rates are higher if the market is pricing in particularly unusual activity, but typically the shorter term is cheaper - resulting in a fee being payable. A flat curve works for us consumers.

This has been the case since the mortgage credit directive came into force. That would override any contractual terms that predate the mcd.

silver2020 · 07-03-2021 6:49pm

uberwolf wrote: »

I'm not sure what figure you're referring to - I.e where you're seeing 1.13%. In had a quick look back through the thread and didn't catch it. But the CRR is not your answer

The essential is that notionally the bank borrows money from the interbank market to lend to you. Say for 5 years. So the prevailing 5 year rate on that day is A. If after 2 years you want to break then the bank has to place your money back on the market - this time at the prevailing 3 year rate so that there is no maturity mismatch. The 3 year rate is B. The difference between the two is the basis of your break fee, unless B is higher than A. Yield curve shenanigans can mean that short term rates are higher if the market is pricing in particularly unusual activity, but typically the shorter term is cheaper - resulting in a fee being payable. A flat curve works for us consumers.

This has been the case since the mortgage credit directive came into force. That would override any contractual terms that predate the mcd.

UB have a published "Cost of Funds" rate and give the historic rates since 2012.

They also have a break fee calculation example and use the phrase "cost of funds" rate from 2014 & 2015 in their example. This rate does not correlate to the published Cost of Funds rate, so I suspect that there are different cost of funds rate for different lending types.

07-03-2021 7:24pm

So with a large number of UB customers with current accounts, do you think any of the other banks will offer incentives for UB customers to move?
It won't happen for a couple of years but at the moment it looks like KBC comes out on top if you are someone that rarely if ever needs to use a physical branch. They come out on top for me as I can reduce banking costs to a minimum with them and their mobile banking beats AIB and BOI. Same applies to credit cards, a nice incentive might entice UB customers.
Maybe this should have a thread of its own.

uberwolf · 07-03-2021 8:15pm

silver2020 wrote: »

UB have a published "Cost of Funds" rate and give the historic rates since 2012.

They also have a break fee calculation example and use the phrase "cost of funds" rate from 2014 & 2015 in their example. This rate does not correlate to the published Cost of Funds rate, so I suspect that there are different cost of funds rate for different lending types.

I think the difference is the tenor. As in cost of funds may well be expressed in the overnight rate, whereas fixing involves longer terms - unpublished.

Spocker · 07-03-2021 8:18pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So with a large number of UB customers with current accounts, do you think any of the other banks will offer incentives for UB customers to move?
It won't happen for a couple of years but at the moment it looks like KBC comes out on top if you are someone that rarely if ever needs to use a physical branch. They come out on top for me as I can reduce banking costs to a minimum with them and their mobile banking beats AIB and BOI. Same applies to credit cards, a nice incentive might entice UB customers.
Maybe this should have a thread of its own.

I doubt it - no other bank wants the money (its too expensive to hold), so I can't see them offering incentives

silver2020 · 07-03-2021 8:54pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So with a large number of UB customers with current accounts, do you think any of the other banks will offer incentives for UB customers to move?
.

An Post were first out of the traps cancelling their rewards scheme

Bank of Ireland followed suit by announcing 80 branch closures

Here are the comparisons
https://www.bonkers.ie/blog/banking/which-bank-has-the-best-value-current-account/

JTMan · 16-05-2021 7:17am

The Sunday Times reports here (paywall):

- Transferring current accounts from UB to PTSB would be a "mess" given far from leading technology on both sides. It also might be highly costly with IT and project costs.
- A probable outcome now is that NatWest will simply sell the mortgage and deposit book, and give its current account customers notice of its intention to leave the market and basically tell them to find their own home.
- Sources say a deal on the mortgage and deposits could be done by the middle of summer, with the transfer proceeding over the ensuing 12 months, during which time customers will sort out their current accounts.

Looks like 500,000 Ulster Bank current account will need to find to a new bank themselves. Wow!

Darc19 · 16-05-2021 7:44am

JTMan wrote: »

Looks like 500,000 Ulster Bank current account will need to find to a new bank themselves. Wow!

Switching current accounts is dreadfully easy. I'll probably switch to AIB at some point in the summer.

I'll fill in the form, give my ID and sign the switching form.

Job done.

Buddy Bubs · 16-05-2021 7:48am

JTMan wrote: »

The Sunday Times reports here (paywall):

- Transferring current accounts from UB to PTSB would be a "mess" given far from leading technology on both sides. It also might be highly costly with IT and project costs.
- A probable outcome now is that NatWest will simply sell the mortgage and deposit book, and give its current account customers notice of its intention to leave the market and basically tell them to find their own home.
- Sources say a deal on the mortgage and deposits could be done by the middle of summer, with the transfer proceeding over the ensuing 12 months, during which time customers will sort out their current accounts.

Looks like 500,000 Ulster Bank current account will need to find to a new bank themselves. Wow!

Switching bank account very easy thing to do in fairness

Sheep Shagger · 16-05-2021 8:11am

JTMan wrote: »

The Sunday Times reports here (paywall):

- Transferring current accounts from UB to PTSB would be a "mess" given far from leading technology on both sides. It also might be highly costly with IT and project costs.
- A probable outcome now is that NatWest will simply sell the mortgage and deposit book, and give its current account customers notice of its intention to leave the market and basically tell them to find their own home.
- Sources say a deal on the mortgage and deposits could be done by the middle of summer, with the transfer proceeding over the ensuing 12 months, during which time customers will sort out their current accounts.

Looks like 500,000 Ulster Bank current account will need to find to a new bank themselves. Wow!

Or PTSB could just open new accounts in their books leveraging AML documents but UB transaction history wouldn't carry across. Nor would standing orders or direct debits.

Or people switch themselves.

Or UB just close accounts in their system and send balances to customers new accounts or by cheque. The same as when Rabo and Nationwide UK did when they exited.

JTMan · 16-05-2021 8:12am

The interesting thing about this is that UB current account customers might not be auto-migrated to PTSB. Open game for Revolut, N26, Monese, An Post, BoI, AIB and even PTSB to avail of this once-off opportunity to get some of the 500k people looking for a new home. That's if they want them.

Buddy Bubs wrote: »

Switching bank account very easy thing to do in fairness

Switching current account provider is not always easy. Firstly, your inbound amounts do not auto-transfer, you need to do this yourself with the third parties. Secondly, the transfer of SO's and DD's does not always go to plan. Thirdly, the bank you are switching too may not offer an 'auto' switch of DD's and SO's, not all do.

Darc19 · 16-05-2021 8:17am

JTMan wrote: »

The interesting thing about this is that UB current account customers might not be auto-migrated to PTSB. Open game for Revolut, N26, Monese, An Post, BoI, AIB and even PTSB to avail of this once-off opportunity to get some of the 500k people looking for a new home. That's if they want them.

Switching current account provider is not always easy. Firstly, your inbound amounts do not auto-transfer, you need to do this yourself with the third parties. Secondly, the transfer of SO's and DD's does not always go to plan. Thirdly, the bank you are switching too may not offer an 'auto' switch of DD's and SO's, not all do.

When switching started there were a few issues, but these days it is seamless.

If you go with a bank that doesn't take part in the scheme, that's your choice

But, yes, you have to inform anyone sending payment to you.

For most people this will be their employer or social welfare or pension provider

Q&A · 16-05-2021 8:29am

JTMan wrote: »

Looks like 500,000 Ulster Bank current account will need to find to a new bank themselves. Wow!

Anyone else think this is a positive.... I wasn't planning on hanging round PTSB for too long after my accounts are moved. One less account to close is fine by me.

Chris_5339762 · 16-05-2021 8:07pm

Buddy Bubs wrote: »

Switching bank account very easy thing to do in fairness

Not to AIB it isn't. Four weeks and counting.

- Their Android app only works on very recent versions of Android. Ridiculous.
- One person looking after new accounts in Wexford. She was on holiday for two weeks. No-one covering.
- They don't accept a scanned version of the application form. Has to be the original.

I mean really. Dark ages stuff here.

Sheep Shagger · 16-05-2021 9:37pm

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Not to AIB it isn't. Four weeks and counting.

- Their Android app only works on very recent versions of Android. Ridiculous.
- One person looking after new accounts in Wexford. She was on holiday for two weeks. No-one covering.
- They don't accept a scanned version of the application form. Has to be the original.

I mean really. Dark ages stuff here.

That's surprising as I read the book by the founder of Starling Bank and she said she streamlined and modernised the account opening process at AIB during her time there.

Darc19 · 16-05-2021 10:17pm

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Not to AIB it isn't. Four weeks and counting.

- Their Android app only works on very recent versions of Android. Ridiculous.
- One person looking after new accounts in Wexford. She was on holiday for two weeks. No-one covering.
- They don't accept a scanned version of the application form. Has to be the original.

I mean really. Dark ages stuff here.

Android 8 has been out for over 4 years. If you have Android 7 or lower many apps won't work not just AIB.

I would suspect most people will have Android 8 or better.

So for the few that don't, they will have to go into a branch - or could upgrade their phones. (You can get a sim free android 8 smartphone for very small money)

I think some people almost go out of their way to get frustrated.

jahalpin · 17-05-2021 11:43am

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Not to AIB it isn't. Four weeks and counting.

- Their Android app only works on very recent versions of Android. Ridiculous.
- One person looking after new accounts in Wexford. She was on holiday for two weeks. No-one covering.
- They don't accept a scanned version of the application form. Has to be the original.

I mean really. Dark ages stuff here.

The app only supports newer versions of Andriod as the security in the older versions is no longer good enough. Google no longer provides security updates for the old versions.

You can open an AIB account using the app, you have a video call with the account opening team and confirm your ID etc on a video call

Jim2007 · 17-05-2021 1:35pm

Q&A wrote: »

Anyone else think this is a positive.... I wasn't planning on hanging round PTSB for too long after my accounts are moved. One less account to close is fine by me.

Yep, 500k people looking for you to give them free stuff.... I expect there will be a lot of filtering to be done.

Chris_5339762 · 17-05-2021 8:27pm

Darc19 wrote: »

Android 8 has been out for over 4 years. If you have Android 7 or lower many apps won't work not just AIB.

I would suspect most people will have Android 8 or better.

So for the few that don't, they will have to go into a branch - or could upgrade their phones. (You can get a sim free android 8 smartphone for very small money)

I think some people almost go out of their way to get frustrated.

I really shouldn't have to upgrade my Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo to be able to bank. Let alone how I would explain all of that to my 75 year old mother. Its a perfectly good phone, its not my fault Samsung won't allow an update past Android 6.0.

I do agree phone apps are useful, but an alternate that is actually reasonably decent is required.

Jim2007 · 18-05-2021 1:20am

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I really shouldn't have to upgrade my Samsung Galaxy S5 Neo to be able to bank. Let alone how I would explain all of that to my 75 year old mother. Its a perfectly good phone, its not my fault Samsung won't allow an update past Android 6.0.

I do agree phone apps are useful, but an alternate that is actually reasonably decent is required.

It’s not the banks fault either and expecting them to continue to allow outdated software to access their systems is a non starter.

And since everyone wants free banking, don’t expect them to invest in alternatives either.

the_amazing_raisin · 18-05-2021 8:51am

Jim2007 wrote: »

It’s not the banks fault either and expecting them to continue to allow outdated software to access their systems is a non starter.

And since everyone wants free banking, don’t expect them to invest in alternatives either.

I would actually take the opposite view that banking and other essential services should have options for legacy users and low bandwidth options. There are still many areas of the country that don't have access to high speed internet, or there are times when you are roaming on an expensive or slow data connection and need quick access to your finances

They could make a fairly simple HTML browser app which has all the same functionality and security but gets rid of the fancy graphics and interactive features to save on bandwidth. It wouldn't need much maintainence either since the technology is as old as the internet and widely supported

AlmightyCushion · 18-05-2021 12:17pm

the_amazing_raisin wrote: »

I would actually take the opposite view that banking and other essential services should have options for legacy users and low bandwidth options. There are still many areas of the country that don't have access to high speed internet, or there are times when you are roaming on an expensive or slow data connection and need quick access to your finances

They could make a fairly simple HTML browser app which has all the same functionality and security but gets rid of the fancy graphics and interactive features to save on bandwidth. It wouldn't need much maintainence either since the technology is as old as the internet and widely supported

Whatever about supporting older versions of Android, the bandwidth thing shouldn't be an issue. All those fancy graphics are likely stored in the app itself and not downloaded every time. I just checked my KBC app and apparently it has only used 3.16MBs of data (that is across mobile and WiFi) since January 26th and only 90KBs this month so far. I imagine the other banks are similar. You don't need high speed internet for these apps either.

the_amazing_raisin · 18-05-2021 12:46pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Whatever about supporting older versions of Android, the bandwidth thing shouldn't be an issue. All those fancy graphics are likely stored in the app itself and not downloaded every time. I just checked my KBC app and apparently it has only used 3.16MBs of data (that is across mobile and WiFi) since January 26th and only 90KBs this month so far. I imagine the other banks are similar. You don't need high speed internet for these apps either.

True enough, but it still leaves the requirement to download newer versions of the app

A simple HTML site works anywhere and requires minimal download data

Natwest considering closing Ulster Bank in the ROI

Comments