Brits' HSBC bank cards, net access goes TITSUP HSBC in the UK is suffering an unexplained outage across a number of systems today. Brit customers have had their cards declined and experienced problems using internet banking and the fast balance app. A spokesperson for the bank told The Reg: "We're aware that some customers are experiencing problems and we're looking into …
@g e
I sympathise (not least because I'm with HSBC too and have seen the flakiness of their normally-robust online service today) but, playing Devil's Advocate with your choice of title, I don't think there's ever a good point for banks to be out of service or offline, is there?
This sort of thing neatly demonstrates the most compelling argument to be made in favour of keeping some cash about your person, IMO. Cash has a number of problems, but "sorry, your bank is currently unavailable" is not one of them!
either carry cash (although, presumably at some point you need to use a card to get it from an ATM, or travel to your nearest branch, during business hours on weekdays)
or multiple cards with a range of different banks. it's unlikely they're ALL going to go offline at once, provided no Acts of Tyler Durden.
@Captain Underpants:
'Robust" is hardly a word that can be applied to HSBC or it's 'service' offerings. I live on ATMs, I have even built hotels using ATMs for cash.
But relying on HSBC UK is an exercise in frustration. In fact, nowadays, I always pull a credit check for the senior bank official and chairman of the board so I have their private numbers with which to seek help. I don't abuse the knowledge - in case they change their numbers - but have it in case nothing else works .
Contrary to HSBC belief they do NOT have the best technology, or the best security, or even thee most reliable service, which is why I have two banks in every country I bank in.
One idea behind ATMs is to reduces thee amount of cash you keep about your person or property. For safety reasons.
I'm assuming since you're reading El Reg that you at least have an interest in IT.
You're probably aware of the concept of resilience? You of course have more than one card from a different provider with you?
Agreed, maybe not "ideal", but shit happens and you need to look out for yourself. And before everyone points it out, yes there are scenarios where this fails - but they're not your inability to pay since you've offered two different types of payment.
In my case, yes I have more than one card. Unfortunately, most of 'em are stuffed, so most of the time only one has enough credit for doing stuff.
Also, having only one card on me means that if I ever get mugged, the mugger will only be able to empty one of my cards instead of all of 'em.
'THE' impact is negative.
'ANY' impact is positive or negative depending if you experienced the fault. If you wern't trying to use the knackered service at any point, then it doesn't affect you and you're less likely to be upset.
Its the subconscious psychological engineering companies like to exercise in communications to try and put a positive uptick . Of course, many people don't fall for it, but those that do hopefully feel a little better.
It's not psychological or grammatical trickery it's simply the correct phrasing since the problem affected multiple systems and uses of those systems so had different impacts.
Trying to pay for something by card? You couldn't pay and it's a bit embarrassing.
Wanted to transfer money to a savings account? You've lost out on a day's interest.
Wanted to check your balance? Nope can't do that right now.
The scenarios and levels of impact are various so saying 'any impact' is perfectly proper.
Unfortunately, HSBC was interpreted by the new Deep Packet Inspection Filters as either Horny Slutty Bondage Club or as Hillegal Sharing Bittorrent Client.
Can't be careful enough to protect the children and the income of the studios; a few inconveniences on the way are to be expected.
Or the Feds couldn't keep up with the amount of data that needed to be stored (you know, encrypted comms are suspicious) and had to slow it down a bit . . .
Not really sure whether the joke icon is appropriate.
This post has been deleted by its author
For years I've used cards only for two purposes: online purchases (credit card) and withdrawing cash from a machine firmly attached to a High St clearing bank (debit card). Withdrawls are generally in amounts sufficient to keep me going for a week or so, so the odd day of outage isn't a problem - especially because when one bank's machine is down, there's another bank just along the street I can go to instead.
Everything bought in person is with cash, up to a value where cheques or bank transfers are acceptable, maybe 500 quid or so. I've even been known to buy a second-hand car with four grand in used 20s. (And come to think of it, I've also been known to pay an 800-quid council tax bill in 2p pieces - but that's what you get if you make me angry.)
Cash is brilliant - you never have to wait for it to be authorised, no-one can nick it without you noticing, and no advertising targetters or police-state-surveillors know what you spend your money on. IIRC cards were originally sold to us on the basis that carrying a card was safer than carrying cash, because you could get mugged and have your wallet nicked. But now you can lose far more by having your card cloned or your account hacked - and you can still get your wallet nicked, except now they have an incentive to pull out your fingernails one by one until you tell them your pin number.
Also, I hear the government disapprove of people using cash, so it's worth doing just to annoy them.
NB - please note that the word "cash" is obsolete usage - the proper term is "beer tokens".
But now you can lose far more by having your card cloned or your account hacked - and you can still get your wallet nicked, except now they have an incentive to pull out your fingernails one by one until you tell them your pin number.
No comment needed - just a copy so it can be upvoted twice. Absolutely spot on.
Upvoted. I'm very much low-tech cash only too, with the same exceptions as you.
However "I've also been known to pay an 800-quid council tax bill in 2p pieces". Surprised you got away with it. Being legal depends on the amount tendered:
<http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines>
"
Coins are legal tender throughout the United Kingdom for the following amount:
£5 (Crown) - for any amount
£2 - for any amount
£1 - for any amount
50p - for any amount not exceeding £10
25p (Crown) - for any amount not exceeding £10
20p - for any amount not exceeding £10
10p - for any amount not exceeding £5
5p - for any amount not exceeding £5
2p - for any amount not exceeding 20p
1p - for any amount not exceeding 20p
"
OTOH 40,000 cheques for 2p apiece would be cool.
£800 in 2p pieces? Really? I'd be amazed if they accepted that. If they did for you, you must have got them on a good day. Technically 2p pieces are only valid up to a payment amount of 20p. £1 coins are the lowest denomination you can pay an unlimited amount in. (http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines)
> Don't lie. The council have no obligation to accept £800 in 2p pieces.
I'm not lying - I knew at the time that they'd have been within their rights to refuse it, but I think the person at the pay-desk was (surprise surprise) not trained to this level of detail about her job. And I think the council needed the money.
Mind you, I felt so sorry for her afterwards that I went out and bought her a box of chocolates. There's no point in kicking the little people for the sins of the system.
Actually I think I am lying in one respect - it was only about 300 quid, not 800. But it did happen.
The fact governments dislike/disapprove of something immediately makes it potentially attractive to me. I have not made a personal credit card purchase for over 40 years, including vehicle purchases, and get a certain perverse delight when I hit a banks 'big cash' reporting limit.
All this to satisfy the US government.
For many of the same reasons @Blitheringeejit enumerated, I love cash.
I also use a double account system. My 'big money' in a savings account with only in-person or InterNet access and a banking account with ATM access. I move money from savings to banking when I know I will need cash.
And I have peace of mind knowing the largest amount that can be stolen from me is the amount in my 'banking' account - of course with the proviso that the HSBC occasionally steals my funds without explanation (really).
Jesus, didn't know we had so many tin-foil hat wearing alarmists around here, only paying in cash so y'know, THE MAN can't track you, if you must use a card, keep two separate accounts - one with your cash in it not linked to anything (call this your black account), no internet banking, no cards, need authorisation of at least two people plus visual identity checks before you can withdraw anything, and your other (red) account with just a minimum float in it which you might need accessible via a card, to minimise losses should (or *when*, remember bad will happen) it be compromised.
Or, you can do what I've safely done for the last 30-odd years, realise your money is protected IF (not WHEN) your card is compromised and it's not your fault, and just live and enjoy life without all the fucking hassle your tin foil hat causes. Oh, and stop being an irritating prick for the sake of it - I mean, really, fucking with THE MAN by paying in coppers? THE MAN doesn't give a shit, but the poor clerk does. THE MAN just sees the total figure on a balance sheet, thanks for paying up, regardless how you do it. Well done.
"But now you can lose far more by having your card cloned or your account hacked"
... which is usually covered by the bank, therefore you don't actually lose anything.
And if you get mugged off by a dodgy transaction, fake goods, faulty good etc, you have something called chargeback to fall back on.
That being said, I still wish I was rich enough to carry around a roll of fifties in my pocket...
Nonsense.
If someone mugs me and takes my cash, it's gone.
With a card, I'm fully covered and protected from theft and malicious use of the card.
Such a silly opinion and you quite clearly live in the middle ages if you aren't willing to embrace the technology of card usage.
One day cash will be defunct and obsolete.
I shall assume the organisation supposedly investigating the RBS issue in the other article are going to have twice the amount of work to do now then..... Of course going on the comments in the other article - one might think RBS brought down HSBC to take the heat of themselves so they can point at HSBC and say - see - we aren't the only ones who screw up......
In my neighbourhood office yesterday, I needed to pay for a spare front door key. They would only accept debit cards, no cash!
(We used to be able to pay with cash, or card. Problem started 10 - 15 years ago, when one of the neighbourhood accountantcy blokes got addicted to drugs. The cash reservoir very quickly disapeared and as is typical of local government they promptly stopped everyone paying by cash. For a while they had a really great system where you had to get a chitty from the office, then take it to the post office to pay, then go back for the permit/key/whatever.)
P.
"For a while they had a really great system where you had to get a chitty from the office, then take it to the post office to pay, then go back for the permit/key/whatever.)"
That's how it works in Italy where the government never trusted its own employees to manage money. For example to ask a passport: 1) Go to the passport office and collect all needed papers. 2) Go to a post office and pay the passport request 3) Go to an authorized revenue stamps reseller (which for historical reasons are usually tobacco shops...!) and get the required stamp 4) Return to the passport office....
At least with credit cards step 2 in no loner necessary.
"(And come to think of it, I've also been known to pay an 800-quid council tax bill in 2p pieces - but that's what you get if you make me angry.)"
That would be over 280kg of coin and generally 4x the stock level held at even large of branches so you methinks your're making shit up.
Also, 2p coins can only be used to settle debt up to 20p, that is their legal tender limit. Which means any body or organisation is well within their right to reject payment made above that value.
From the Royal Mint and Bank of England:
"Notes:
In England and Wales the £5, £10, £20 and £50 notes are legal tender for payment of any amount. However, they are not legal tender in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Coins:
Coins are legal tender throughout the United Kingdom for the following amount:
£5 (Crown) - for any amount
£2 - for any amount
£1 - for any amount
50p - for any amount not exceeding £10
25p (Crown) - for any amount not exceeding £10
20p - for any amount not exceeding £10
10p - for any amount not exceeding £5
5p - for any amount not exceeding £5
2p - for any amount not exceeding 20p
1p - for any amount not exceeding 20p"
This also points out an other curiosity:
Yes, that is right Scottish notes are NOT legal tender outside of Scotland!
AND English money is not legal tender in Scotland.
To be honest the term Legal Tender isn't that important.
In the United Kingdom the only bank notes that are legal tender are the Bank of England notes in England (and maybe Wales, not quite sure). Notes issued by Scottish and Northern Irish banks are not legal tender anywhere. However they all (including the Bank of England notes) have the "promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of ..." and are backed up by the relevant bank, therefore people use them (the alternate would of course be to trade goods).
I guess in the context of paying a £800 council tax bill in 2p coins, yes it's not a "legal tender" payment, but its still a payment in a legal currency, and therefore there is no legal reason for it to not be accepted.
Bank of England says:
Are Scottish & Northern Ireland notes "legal tender"?
In short ‘No’ these notes are not "legal tender"; furthermore, Bank of England notes are only legal tender in England and Wales. Legal tender has, however, a very narrow technical meaning in relation to the settlement of debt. If a debtor pays in legal tender the exact amount he/she owes under the terms of a contract (and in accordance with its terms), or pays this amount into court, he/she has good defence in law if he/she is sued for non-payment of the debt.
In ordinary everyday transactions, the term "legal tender" in its purest sense need not govern a note's acceptability in transactions. The acceptability of a Scottish or Northern Ireland note as a means of payment is essentially a matter for agreement between the parties involved. If both parties are in agreement, Scottish and Northern Ireland notes can be used in England and Wales. Holders of genuine Scottish and Northern Ireland notes are provided with a level of protection similar to that provided to holders of Bank of England notes. This is because the issuing banks must back their note issue using a combination of Bank of England notes, UK coin and funds in an interest bearing bank account at the Bank of England.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
