Are local bank branches doomed?

Sadly, reducing the number of bank branches would have no effect on the companies that send out cheques, in fact it may well encourage more to do so, if they can see extra interest on money they’ve paid up just because it could take longer to pay a cheque in. I wonder if we’re allowed to start charging an admin fee for our time and effort in finding an open branch and paying in a cheque, now that might help reduce the number of cheques being issued.

The phasing out of cheques has been debated extensively, including on Which? Conversation. They cannot sensibly be phased out until a suitable alternative is provided. Business might survive without them, but they are essential for many charities. You can choose which businesses you deal with, nfh, but please spare a thought for charities even if you have no personal involvement. I work for a charity and would rather handle cheques than hundreds of pounds of assorted cash, but both are extremely welcome. It would be nice to get more standing orders and bank transfers, but those represent a relatively minor contribution to the funds I deal with.

Charities can accept bank transfers; cheques are no longer necessary. Bank tranfers can be initiated online, by telephone, or by person in a branch (for those who still insist on branch banking). Cheques are unnecessary and an unreasonable burden on the recipient.

I am well aware of this, nfh, and the charity that I’m involved in has been encouraging this for years. However, most of the donations that I process are cash and some are cheques. You do what you want, but please accept that cheques are very important to charities. There are a couple of Which? Conversations where this is made abundantly clear. I give a lot of my time to a charity and so does our treasurer, who is happy to process any number of cheques, Gift Aid forms, etc.

It is not necessary to visit a branch every time you want to pay in a cheque. I have been paying cheques into my bank account by post for years and I think most banks have this facility. Nevertheless, I would be very sorry if any of the major banks embarked on large-scale branch closures. It is frequently necessary [and usually more effective] to speak to someone over a transactional matter than try to wrangle it over the phone, on-line or by post – especially if documentation is involved. Obviously, the internet has led to a big reduction in the number of cheques and cash withdrawals being handled by branches but they still fulfill a major role in cash-handling and general banking for the local traders. I still issue a surprising number of cheques a year for things ordered by post, various commercial payments, balancing payments to utilities, and so on. Many of these could be done through interbank transfers but I have experienced reconcilaition problems in the past and the denial of receipts clearly debited from my account. Charities, small businesses, holiday homes to let, and numerous other concerns could not function without cheques [or an effective substitute if such can be devised] and where there are cheques there should be bank branches.

I don’t receive many cheques nowadays. There is usually a queue at my bank (showing that there is still a demand) so I just pop an envelope in their letterbox, saving postage. The branch is conveniently located and I don’t have to make a special journey.

Those who continue to use branches to deposit cheques should pay for the privilege; it’s an unnecessary waste of resources. Any account holder who can receive a cheque can also receive a bank transfer. Similarly any account holder who can issue a cheque can also send a bank transfer. It makes no difference whether the account holder is an individual, a business or a charity. Other countries’ banking systems function perfectly without cheques. Cheques are no longer necessary and branches should not be kept open in order to process them.

Have a look at this Conversation and earlier ones on this site: https://conversation.which.co.uk/money/cheques-saved-by-payments-council/

If you wish, you can refuse to deal with any organisation that uses cheques. Just let charities, which are major users of cheques, get on with doing their job. Let’s say that you want to buy a copy of a book produced by our society or an archive video when we have a stall in a gazebo at a village show. Cash or cheque are the only sensible choices. Obviously it’s different for larger charities with shops.

Think of other people and not just yourself. I would like to make it clear that I never write cheques unless I am asked to.

Hold on a minute, nfh! To say that “any account holder who can issue a cheque can also send a bank transfer” is a sweeping generalisation. There are millions of people who can write out cheques and pop them in the post [or get a friend or neighbour to do so] but they have no means whatsoever of making a bank transfer without physically going into a bank.

I realise that banking has to be commercially viable but there is no need to discard all its public service traditions. I for one am quite happy to see smaller bank branches survive even if they have to be cross-subsidised by more profitable ones. The notion that customers would benefit from a major closure programme instead of the shareholders is curious to say the least.

Well said, Sophie. And where else in July would someone remind you to get your winter sports insurance?