Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Siduhe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you're someone (like me) who has a bank

> account, a regular salary or pension and who

> doesn't think much about buying a coffee on the

> way to work every day, this undoubtedly seems like

> a great, convenient idea.

>

> However, alongside of the practical issues for the

> elderly or people who don't work through illness -

> it's the overall signal this sends which I am

> uncomfortable with. Going cashless signals to

> people who rely on cash, and are almost certainly

> economically vulnerable, that "their kind" aren't

> welcome to share these spaces. Put yourself in the

> position of a parent who doesn't have any spare

> cash, and for whom a once a week treat for their

> kids at the park cafe is the single luxury they

> allow themselves to keep within budget - there are

> plenty of people for whom this is a day to day

> reality. I count myself incredibly fortunate that

> I'm not one of them, but it's totally wrong to

> ignore that in the name of convenience.

>

> This move basically tells anyone who is unbanked

> that they are not as welcome to use our public

> spaces and council run amenities, when they are

> exactly the kind of people who need the support

> most. In the US, a few cities have enacted laws

> that prevent restaurants from going cashless for

> exactly this reason.

> https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/03/cashless-ca

> sh-free-ban-bill-new-york-retail-discrimination/58

> 4203


Don't you also need a bank account to receive benefits now? There must be fewer and fewer people who do not have one. I guess a few of those could be without a contactless card. I used to have some sort of rubbish non-switch card switch card once, but I could still use it to buy stuff.

Although under 18s can now have debit cards - considering how many are mugged for e.g. phones I wouldn't want to risk a child having a card on them unaccompanied, which means that they will be restricted from buying stuff which, as a child myself (I can just remember that far back) I used to do - ice creams, pop and sweets. Independently buying small value items is sort-of part of what growing up's about. This is exactly the sort of outlet where that should be 'safe'.
Don't you also need a bank account to receive benefits now? There must be fewer and fewer people who do not have one. I guess a few of those could be without a contactless card. I used to have some sort of rubbish non-switch card switch card once, but I could still use it to buy stuff.


DWP certainly prefer to make a payment into a bank account, an account with a credit union or a prepaid card which can be reloaded to receive the majority of benefits now that universal credit has been rolled out. Pre-paid cards generally aren't contactless but you can use them like a normal debit card.


While most basic bank accounts or credit union accounts offer debit cards as part of the general package, the decision whether to issue one is an individual decision of the bank for any individual account, and the general rule of thumb is the less financially stable you are, the less likely you are to be offered a debit card even on a basic bank account, just a cashcard, so people end up using the account to pay bills via direct debit and taking out cash. It's a real failing (IMHO) of the drafting of the regulations which require the largest current account providers in the UK to offer fee-free basic bank accounts to customers who are either unbanked or who are ineligible for a standard current account.


Those people who can't even get a basic bank account (often because they are deemed too high risk because of previous financial difficulties or fraud) have to use something called the Payment Exceptions Service which is a voucher based system.

Siduhe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> DWP certainly prefer to make a payment into a bank

> account, an account with a credit union or a

> prepaid card which can be reloaded to receive the

> majority of benefits now that universal credit has

> been rolled out. Pre-paid cards generally aren't

> contactless but you can use them like a normal

> debit card.

>

> While most basic bank accounts or credit union

> accounts offer debit cards as part of the general

> package, the decision whether to issue one is an

> individual decision of the bank for any individual

> account, and the general rule of thumb is the less

> financially stable you are, the less likely you

> are to be offered a debit card even on a basic

> bank account, just a cashcard, so people end up

> using the account to pay bills via direct debit

> and taking out cash. It's a real failing (IMHO)

> of the drafting of the regulations which require

> the largest current account providers in the UK to

> offer fee-free basic bank accounts to customers

> who are either unbanked or who are ineligible for

> a standard current account.

>

> Those people who can't even get a basic bank

> account (often because they are deemed too high

> risk because of previous financial difficulties or

> fraud) have to use something called the Payment

> Exceptions Service which is a voucher based

> system.


Thanks, useful information.


I do take issue with the general idea that you are more likely to spend irresponsibly with a card vs cash (which is surely the implication for not giving one to 'high risk'/rubbish with money type people). Surely if you go and withdraw a load of cash and you are bad at managing it then you are more likely to spend it if you have it sitting there.


I also strongly disagree that carrying cash is somehow safer than carrying a card as someone else suggested above. If you don't have contactless then the card is much more difficult to use than cash, and if you do have contactless then as long as you notify the bank you have a good chance of getting back any money spent on it, and if you have the bank's app (or you just call them up) you can put a temporary block on it.

I did.


Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Beej Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Good grief, I haven?t used cash since 1999,

> > Embrace the future people. 🙄

>

>

> Perhaps read the thread before posting?

Beej Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I did.

>

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Beej Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Good grief, I haven?t used cash since 1999,

> > > Embrace the future people. 🙄

> >

> >

> > Perhaps read the thread before posting?



So if you read the thread, what are your thoughts about the points made in it about those who don't have a debit card?

There's points for it either way. On the plus side, it minimises queuing (there's invariably someone in the queue rummaging in a purse going "oh, do you want the 42p, just a second..." ), it's cheaper and easier for the shop (less risk of break in for cash, no chance of an employee with sticky fingers in the till, no cash deposit fees).


But there are some negatives too - it generally means that kids can't go in there (I suppose you can argue that as a good or bad point depending on if you want a bunch of schoolkids going into a cafe!!), plenty of people don't like spending money in that way as it does make keeping track of spending harder, it means that tips are much less likely for the cafe (if you're buying a coffee & pastry/cake and pay with a tenner, you're quite likely to drop at least some of the change in a tips jar on the counter but can't do that with a card) but the worst point is that there's no consistency.


Some cafes, shops etc are card only. Some will only take card over ?10. Some won't take card at all (or they won't take certain types like no Amex, or no Apple Pay). And that can make things quite confusing for older people or non-regulars.


Near me, the cafe is card only. The chippy is cash only. I've got no real problems with either but you do need to know and go prepared.

exdulwicher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> it generally

> means that kids can't go in there (I suppose you

> can argue that as a good or bad point depending on

> if you want a bunch of schoolkids going into a cafe!!)


It's right next to the playground, why wouldn't kids want to buy an ice cream or a drink?


Yesterday I saw a couple of young girls walk away looking glum and rather embarrassed, because they couldn't pay for their their hot chocolate and cake. It got me thinking about what other people might not have cards... immigrants? The elderly and vulnerable?

It could be argued (and I would) that an outlet in a public park should be obliged to support purchasers without discrimination - we now lived in a mixed economy where cash and cards are both generally accepted and should be accepted here. An outlet on the high street may choose only one exchange medium (many, because of bank and merchant issuer charges do not choose to offer credit, or even debit card facilities) - but I think that an outlet in a public park offering refreshment should be obliged by their council landlord to accept cash transactions. Not to do so, as I and others have pointed out, is to discriminate against legitimate park users.

Im all for this really. In Peckham lots of people dont have cards and as a result there are huge queues at supermarket tills as they stand around waiting for the 1 sole till operaotr/machine that takes coins, but not actually making people aware of this so a big queue builds up behind them. This is very annoying and wastes my time.


If it were up to me, everywhere would be card only. If you dont have a bank card then you are probably quite dodgy anyway.

imasnookercue (queue :) ) is mixing it up in my experience.


You don't see queues in supermarkets to pay cash although I have stood around waiting for someone to go through 5 or 10 collected vouchers, you used to see long queues in the banks in Rye Lane to deposit cash but even that is changing.

It?s a pity the cafe isn?t more elderly friendly. I?d love to take my mum for a stroll round the park followed by a coffee & cake but not at that cafe. Mum may be 90 & need some help but she still values her independence & being able to pay for a coffee & cake is part of that. I?m sorry if it takes her a bit longer & you?re in the queue behind her but hopefully you?ll all reach that age & may appreciate a bit of tolerance & kindness.

I like cashless but ....


"During economic downturns, governments face challenges stimulating the economy by lowering interest rates, since people are likely to hoard their cash instead. This means governments and central banks have limited power, also known as the zero lower bound theory.


However, with digital payments and no cash, people would be unable to withdraw money from the financial system, meaning governments and banks could leverage greater control of the economy through monetary policy. Specifically, the implementation of a negative interest rate during economic downturns could be brought in, whereby people would pay banks to store their deposits, instead of earning interest on those deposits. This aims to stimulate more lending from banks and increased investment by businesses, as well as encouraging people to invest, lend and spend instead of amassing money."


https://www.forbes.com/sites/vishalmarria/2018/12/21/what-a-cashless-society-could-mean-for-the-future/#35ea118a3263

dresswaves Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It?s a pity the cafe isn?t more elderly friendly.

> I?d love to take my mum for a stroll round the

> park followed by a coffee & cake but not at that

> cafe. Mum may be 90 & need some help but she still

> values her independence & being able to pay for a

> coffee & cake is part of that. I?m sorry if it

> takes her a bit longer & you?re in the queue

> behind her but hopefully you?ll all reach that age

> & may appreciate a bit of tolerance & kindness.


Take your mum to the French Cafe in forest hill road after a walk. The owner is lovely. I don?t think they have gone cashless.

I have lost my card once inall the years i have had it. I was unable to use my account to withdraw money from the bank as i did not have photo ID. Luckily i could borrow money till my new card was sent. It made me feel extremely tied to a system that firstly can't be trusted, that seemed unable to understand my situation, relies almost soley on technology and ensures a better working of there system for the rich. If someone gets on the bus whose oyster card has run out you can no longer offer to help by paying, you can't tap your oyster twice. Yes you may go into minus with a card but it encourages a "not my problem" attitude.


Oops didnt save my edit, to say, fraud and corruption are rife in banking, last year in uk there were victims, albeit a small amount who were not reimburst. This problem runs through banking or do we have a situation where we are able to trust this system regardless of the past.

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have lost my card once inall the years i have

> had it. I was unable to use my account to withdraw

> money from the bank as i did not have photo ID.

> Luckily i could borrow money till my new card was

> sent. It made me feel extremely tied to a system

> that firstly can't be trusted, that seemed unable

> to understand my situation, relies almost soley on

> technology and ensures a better working of there

> system for the rich. If someone gets on the bus

> whose oyster card has run out you can no longer

> offer to help by paying, you can't tap your oyster

> twice. Yes you may go into minus with a card but

> it encourages a "not my problem" attitude.


I lost my debit card once, took ?100 out and felt like a child all week (and ended up putting things on credit card).

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...