Please sign an e-petition against advertising on ATMs (Cash Machines)

[waterman1]

I think it is worth remembering that only a minority of financial institutions have rigorously engaged in 3rd party ATM advertising. Actually a good few have dabbled in it but not committed themselves...why? Luckily for them they made the right decision to ditch it.

 

The company that sells ATM ad system has, arguably, gone from one back door to the next to sell to the banks' propensity for avarice, since 2001. The raison d'etre of ATM advertising is their own profit, banks need neither the hassle, negative connotations nor in fact the income - which makes the commitment of RBS to go hand in hand with Tesco all the more puzzling, reckless even.

 

Why indeed is only 1 advertising/software company active in the ATM marketplace?? It's a fundamental question yet to be answered.

[waterman1]

Q - You are a retailing financial institution and as Conniff says you decide one day you don't like it, you think you can stop being a member of The Banking Code. That is correct, but which of these two groups would you rather be in:

 

The Members: Banking Code Standards Board

 

The Non-Members: Banking Code Standards Board

 

?

[barracad]

An ATM owned by a member of The Banking Code (as NW is) remains a "bank", governed by the said Banking Code, wherever it is: supermarket, petrol filling station, shopping precinct. There is absolutely no time when its operator is able to consider the customers of the said machine as anything other than owed the appropriate finesse demanded of the banking community 24/7.

 

So, when RBS put advertising ATMs at Tescos, they owe the same duty of care to the users, under the Banking Code, as an ATM at a branch.

 

There is no doubt about this

 

I don't see how an ATM can ever be classed as a "bank" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Furthermore, I think you'll find that the ATMs at Tesco are provided by Tesco Personal Finance, not RBS, and as far as I know Tesco Personal Finance aren't members of the voluntary banking code.

[waterman1]

Thanks for your comment.

 

Actually, ATMs are totally governed by The Banking Code. It might be helpful if anyone reading this thread read the following annual statement:

 

http://www.bankingcode.org.uk/pdfdocs/Annual_Report_final.pdf

 

You will see that the Chairman points out that the majority of people cannot be expected to understand the Banking Code, he even includes banks and the regulators themselves in this rather insightful piece. This totally explains why the contributors to this thread clearly are making fundamental mistakes.

 

As for ATMs at Tesco, again, do some research. Petrol stations at Tescos are ESSO under an own label, while Tesco Personal Finance use Royal Bank of Scotland ATMs. Just as Tesco don't and can't change the fact that the fuel is from an ESSO refinery, so they can't change the fact the ATMs are RBS and governed by the Banking Code.

 

An extremely important point here is that, in case law, the owner cannot subcontract responsibility for the operation of an item, or divest themselves of their liability, so yes ATMs at Tesco are RBS, if you doubt it, read this:

 

ATM Advertising/CRM | Royal Bank of Scotland signs contract with i-design | ATM Marketplace

 

And actually Tesco Personal Finance are members of The Banking Code, so I think I have made my point.

[waterman1]

Can I be permitted to make some further points regarding 3 things:

 

On the subject of Bank Charges, banks are having to pay them back, not because they are not permitted, but because they were excessive.

 

On the subject of charges at ATMs, these are absolutely permitted and written into the Banking Code. The fact that banks have tried and failed to introduce them is because of public pressure at this juncture.

 

In respect of ATM 3rd party advertising, it is not strictly permitted under the Banking Code, for fundamental reasons that cannot be avoided. If there is a loophole that allows it, that is the fault of the regulators being asleep at the wheel for many years.

 

In any case of these 3 things, the best legal case against any single one is advertising on ATMs. In order to understand this, please look at the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 and you will see, under the section for emails what the controls on advertising at ATMs should be. Further, The Banking Code's own section 8 (in 2005 version) requires banks to canvass

all customers every 3 years regarding willingness to be advertised to. When was the last time your bank wrote to you and asked your permission?

 

I conclude that if such controls were properly introduced, 3rd party advertising would be far less attractive to advertisers, commercial or "government (civil service).

 

No one wants to pay for a service that ATM customers - quite properly - should be able to switch off as soon as their card is inserted.

[waterman1]

Due to work commitments, it will be week or so before I can respond to any other comments. The new banking code is due out tomorrow so that's also going to keep me busy.

 

Thanks for all the comments so far.

 

Think of an analogy such as all networked ATMs being like little embassies of banks, out there in the big wide world, but all tethered together by The Banking Code, and you will not be far off the truth.

[Conniff]

It's nice to see a thread where the difference of opinion hasn't turned into a slanging match or turned personal.

 

Will look forward to the new banking code.