The future of cash

[Peter0124]

My selfish opinion:
It should be abolished, it stinks and atleast cards can automatically calculate change.

There are also some businesses (eg certain barbers) who only accept cash, why?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As a non-business Banking user, I used to be impressed that cash deposits were free for their customers, however with the decimation of bank branches, cash is now a liability and I avoid it wherever possible. The takeaways that proclaim ‘Cash only” have lost a ton of money from me and others (whether it’s a tax dodge or not!).

Curiously my local chippy is the only reason I now carry cash. Once they start taking card I'll stop carrying it. Probably keep a hundred or so hidden at home just in case though.

 

[Merle Haggard]

As a non-business Banking user, I used to be impressed that cash deposits were free for their customers, however with the decimation of bank branches, cash is now a liability and I avoid it wherever possible. The takeaways that proclaim ‘Cash only” have lost a ton of money from me and others (whether it’s a tax dodge or not!).

I've found cheques to be a similar liability. About the only way I can deposit a cheque (I have an HSBC First Direct account which, according to HSBC branches' staff is a bank that's nothing to do with them) is to take it to a Post Sub-Office but from experience if it gets lost in transit no-one accepts responsibility.
At least surplus cash can be used for supermarket and fuel purchases.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've found cheques to be a similar liability. About the only way I can deposit a cheque (I have an HSBC First Direct account which, according to HSBC branches' staff is a bank that's nothing to do with them) is to take it to a Post Sub-Office but from experience if it gets lost in transit no-one accepts responsibility.
At least surplus cash can be used for supermarket and fuel purchases.

The banking system should have held its nerve and abolished cheques, but they caved into pressure. They are just not necessary and are as you say a pain to process even now it's all image based and they aren't physically posted anywhere. A German style system (which has existed there for 30+ years) of taking paper transfer slips to your own bank to be keyed as a Faster Payment would have been sufficient to mitigate for the small number (and ever diminishing) of people who will not do any form of electronic banking.

 

[Buzby]

A German style system (which has existed there for 30+ years) of taking paper transfer slips

We had that. Anyone remember National Girobank? HQ was in Bootle - postcode GIR 0AA, and we used transfer slips to pay folk who had accounts, and Girocheques for those that hadn’t. Naturally, it all ended in tears.Girobank Advert

 

[Merle Haggard]

The banking system should have held its nerve and abolished cheques, but they caved into pressure. They are just not necessary and are as you say a pain to process even now it's all image based and they aren't physically posted anywhere. A German style system (which has existed there for 30+ years) of taking paper transfer slips to your own bank to be keyed as a Faster Payment would have been sufficient to mitigate for the small number (and ever diminishing) of people who will not do any form of electronic banking.

I use a telephone bank and making bank transfers can be a pain, too. For instance, to avoid a cheque I tried to make a bank transfer to a railway interest group for their quarterly magazine; the amount to be transferred was £12. Unfortunately, their bank account name was abbreviated slightly (and oddly), presumably as a result of length, and as a result didn't exactly match the name I gave for the account number I gave. Cue; ten minutes of cross examination presumably because either a) I am the victim of a scam or b) I'm money laundering. All for £12 quid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We had that. Anyone remember National Girobank? HQ was in Bootle - postcode GIR 0AA, and we used transfer slips to pay folk who had accounts, and Girocheques for those that hadn’t. Naturally, it all ended in tears.Girobank Advert

It doesn't end in tears in Germany, it works perfectly well and always has.

 

[Merle Haggard]

We had that. Anyone remember National Girobank? HQ was in Bootle - postcode GIR 0AA, and we used transfer slips to pay folk who had accounts, and Girocheques for those that hadn’t. Naturally, it all ended in tears.Girobank Advert

I had a Giro account, my youthful war against big business/banks.
Making a cash withdrawal meant cashing my own Girocheque at a Post Office. When I did this during my lunch hour in a posh area central London, at first I didn't understand why people looked at me with contempt and even expected to push in front of me.
Worked out it was because I was visibly holding a 'Girocheque' strongly associated with the payment of benefits.
Interesting assumptions...

 

[Buzby]

It doesn't end in tears in Germany

Perhaps not there - but we HAD the exact same system and let it die. Sold on to Alliance & Leicester, then Santander who vacated the site and the iconic building demolished. The public point blank refused to support it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2026 ==

Worked out it was because I was visibly holding a 'Girocheque' strongly associated with the payment of benefits

Of course all Govt payments were routed through the system so anyone with a basic account cashing a cheque had to run the gauntlet. Did they do that in Germany, I wonder?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps not there - but we HAD the exact same system and let it die. Sold on to Alliance & Leicester, then Santander who vacated the site and the iconic building demolished. The public point blank refused to support it.

In the 1970s-80s. The world is different now and most people transferring money to one another are using Faster Payments, not cheques. A good many people under about 30 will never have seen a cheque. I have neither received nor written one for over ten years now, and my present bank (Monzo) doesn't even offer the option to have a chequebook, though it does offer deposits by post. (They never bothered doing cheque imaging as their customers mostly just don't need it).

All that is needed is to provide a system, as cheap as possible but workable, for those who only bank on paper to still bank. Cheques are an expensive way to do that. Very similar to the way CCST will be moved to barcodes on till roll and ToD (if it survives) will just be e-tickets outputted on till roll - most people are using the electronic methods so the priority for the traditional option is to minimise cost of operation while still being workable.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Perhaps not there - but we HAD the exact same system and let it die. Sold on to Alliance & Leicester, then Santander who vacated the site and the iconic building demolished. The public point blank refused to support it.

One of the oddities of having a Giro account was when a cheque guarantee card was introduced it didn't have the same account number on the card as on the cheque. Consequently restaurant refused my cheque for a meal for two.When I eventually spoke to a proper manager in Girobank they said 'the restaurant should know the two numbers are different'. I reasonably asked if the restaurant accepts a cheque with a different number to the guarantee card would Giro always accept it but they didn't understand the significance.
Moved all my standing orders and pay deposits to another bank but left £1 in the Giro account.
Relationship with lady involved unaffected, regarded as another 'entertainment'.

 

[35B]

The banking system should have held its nerve and abolished cheques, but they caved into pressure. They are just not necessary and are as you say a pain to process even now it's all image based and they aren't physically posted anywhere. A German style system (which has existed there for 30+ years) of taking paper transfer slips to your own bank to be keyed as a Faster Payment would have been sufficient to mitigate for the small number (and ever diminishing) of people who will not do any form of electronic banking.

The banks would have stood a greater chance if they'd shown anything other than money grabbing contempt for organisations like charities. I'm trustee of a charity that still makes payments by cheque because, until very recently, HSBC would not allow small charitable accounts access to online payments facilities capable of applying dual authority (you know, that mandatory control required by the Charity Commission) without levying corporate levels of charges.

There are also cases (clue - I'm an executor) where cheques are necessary whether or not I wish to make online payments.

 

[Trackman]

Curiously my local chippy is the only reason I now carry cash. Once they start taking card I'll stop carrying it. Probably keep a hundred or so hidden at home just in case though.

There was a Chinese takeaway near me that would only take cash and couldn't promise change (is that legal?). I was a case of studying the menu carefully before ordering.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The banks would have stood a greater chance if they'd shown anything other than money grabbing contempt for organisations like charities. I'm trustee of a charity that still makes payments by cheque because, until very recently, HSBC would not allow small charitable accounts access to online payments facilities capable of applying dual authority (you know, that mandatory control required by the Charity Commission) without levying corporate levels of charges.

That is easily fixed and there are plenty of banks offering dual authorisation Faster Payments for charities now.

There are also cases (clue - I'm an executor) where cheques are necessary whether or not I wish to make online payments.

They are not necessary in any context. HMRC needs to pack in using them though.

 

[35B]

In the 1970s-80s. The world is different now and most people transferring money to one another are using Faster Payments, not cheques. A good many people under about 30 will never have seen a cheque. I have neither received nor written one for over ten years now, and my present bank (Monzo) doesn't even offer the option to have a chequebook, though it does offer deposits by post. (They never bothered doing cheque imaging as their customers mostly just don't need it).

All that is needed is to provide a system, as cheap as possible but workable, for those who only bank on paper to still bank. Cheques are an expensive way to do that. Very similar to the way CCST will be moved to barcodes on till roll and ToD (if it survives) will just be e-tickets outputted on till roll - most people are using the electronic methods so the priority for the traditional option is to minimise cost of operation while still being workable.

I still use cheques very occasionally - most recently as a way of supporting a local collection for a national charity, because online giving wasn't attributed to the local collection, and I wanted to encourage the local organisers (my alternative would have been cash...)

 

[Bletchleyite]

There was a Chinese takeaway near me that would only take cash and couldn't promise change (is that legal?).

Yes, it is not a requirement in law to give change, businesses are allowed to require exact change and accept overpayment, indeed pretty much all cash-accepting parking meters work that way.

 

[35B]

That is easily fixed and there are plenty of banks offering dual authorisation Faster Payments for charities now.

There are now, but getting access to those is not always easy or straightforward.

They are not necessary in any context. HMRC needs to pack in using them though.

Once again, one of those irregular verbs - "I do not need them, you shouldn't need them, they are unnecessary in any circumstances".

 

[The exile]

Someone I know ran a small business with customers, often students, that paid £10 - £15. Although he was charged for depositing cheques (rare0 and for accepting payment cards he was also charged for depositing cash, on pro-rata basis, at a higher rate than cheques.
There was a way around this involving me which I won't elaborate on because it might be construed as money laundering. Clues; I have a cheque book and also could then deposit reasonably large amounts of cash in my current account without incurring bank charges. I think that things may have changed currently, though.

Not money laundering if the money was “clean” in the first place.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are now, but getting access to those is not always easy or straightforward.

Yes it is. You simply open your charity account with a bank offering that service.

Once again, one of those irregular verbs - "I do not need them, you shouldn't need them, they are unnecessary in any circumstances".

Are you happy to pay the additional cost of using an archaic method of processing payments? If so I am happy for them still to be offered at the cost of those wishing to use them. I don't know what that price per cheque would be though, it'd be interesting to know! Anyone know what business accounts typically charge per cheque?

I am NOT happy for my account charges (I have a packaged account) to be higher, my interest to be lower or my packaged account benefits to be worse just to please people who wish to live as if it was 1975 but not cover the costs of doing so. This is one reason I bank with Monzo, a bank which does not offer these archaic options at all, so it can concentrate on offering a good quality modern banking service which i find to be super-convenient. (FWIW I have not branch banked since summer 1998 when I switched to Smile from the Co-operative Bank, a pioneer of online banking).

 

[The exile]

There was a Chinese takeaway near me that would only take cash and couldn't promise change (is that legal?). I was a case of studying the menu carefully before ordering.

It is perfectly legal (though the reasons for only taking cash may have been less so.)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2026 ==

Yes it is. You simply open your charity account with a bank offering that service.

Just out of interest, how often have you been involved in switching club /charity bank accounts when all parties concerned work full time?

 

[35B]

Yes it is. You simply open your charity account with a bank offering that service.

I wish life were so simple. Many banks don't offer that service, or do so on extremely tight conditions, or charge through the nose for the privilege. It is in no way akin to personal banking.

Are you happy to pay the additional cost of using an archaic method of processing payments? If so I am happy for them still to be offered at the cost of those wishing to use them. I don't know what that price per cheque would be though, it'd be interesting to know! Anyone know what business accounts typically charge per cheque?

I am NOT happy for my account charges (I have a packaged account) to be higher, my interest to be lower or my packaged account benefits to be worse just to please people who wish to live as if it was 1975 but not cover the costs of doing so. This is one reason I bank with Monzo, a bank which does not offer these archaic options at all, so it can concentrate on offering a good quality modern banking service which i find to be super-convenient. (FWIW I have not branch banked since summer 1998 when I switched to Smile from the Co-operative Bank, a pioneer of online banking).

You mean that you expect to have all the benefits with none of the costs, and to impose the costs of social responsibility directly on the users. Meanwhile, for those less mobile than you, the options you propose are not always available. As for not branch banking, I've been there (IF, First Direct) and found it great - until it wasn't. Just try opening an Executors bank account and you'll see quite what I mean (no, Monzo won't do them either - surely not cherry picking?).

As for charity banking, the options are really limited. The charity I referred to earlier could go fully online and I'm working on the chair to achieve that. But for a church, the ability to handle cash is non-negotiable - for some of our congregants, that is how they work, no matter how hard we try to move them elsewhere. And, no, we don't turn round to our donors or customers (when running events) and say that their money isn't good enough.

 

[sor]

They are not necessary in any context. HMRC needs to pack in using them though.

I still use cheques for one purpose - to participate in the occasional RNLI or National Trust lottery. The options seem to be to a cheque or to write your card details on the slip. It seems ironic that the cheque is the slightly more secure way to do it!

This is one reason I bank with Monzo, a bank which does not offer these archaic options at all, so it can concentrate on offering a good quality modern banking service which i find to be super-convenient. (FWIW I have not branch banked since summer 1998 when I switched to Smile from the Co-operative Bank, a pioneer of online banking).

I am no luddite but I would question whether Monzo is "good quality". In terms of "modernity" they have swung too far the other way with an overreliance on their mobile app, which last time I checked only works on one phone at a time. Starling doesn't have this problem, and it also provides a fully fledged online banking experience. Neither bank really gives me that much more in terms of useful features than I get through my fuddy duddy building society anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I still use cheques for one purpose - to participate in the occasional RNLI or National Trust lottery. The options seem to be to a cheque or to write your card details on the slip. It seems ironic that the cheque is the slightly more secure way to do it!

Doing something like this using a paper slip is what is archaic of course! Though the NT does have an older member demographic than most organisations.

If cheques had been abolished they'd have to come up with a better solution.

I am no luddite but I would question whether Monzo is "good quality". In terms of "modernity" they have swung too far the other way with an overreliance on their mobile app, which last time I checked only works on one phone at a time. Starling doesn't have this problem, and it also provides a fully fledged online banking experience. Neither bank really gives me that much more in terms of useful features than I get through my fuddy duddy building society anyway.

Monzo and Starling are two very similar things but slightly different, I've always suggested people try both and stick with the one they prefer. Revolut is an option there as well now it has a banking licence.

I don't want to bank on my laptop to be honest, happy with it being on my phone, and I can swap it to the iPad if desired. I would like it to be logged in on both though, and indeed you can if one is Android and one iOS for some reason! They also have a limited functionality Web banking function which can be used to do stuff like blocking cards.

Either way, by choosing an online only bank (which I have since 1998) I don't need to be paying for expensive services that I don't want.

 

[35B]

Monzo and Starling are two very similar things but slightly different, I've always suggested people try both and stick with the one they prefer. Revolut is an option there as well now it has a banking licence.

I don't want to bank on my laptop to be honest, happy with it being on my phone, and I can swap it to the iPad if desired. I would like it to be logged in on both though, and indeed you can if one is Android and one iOS for some reason! They also have a limited functionality Web banking function which can be used to do stuff like blocking cards.

Either way, by choosing an online only bank (which I have since 1998) I don't need to be paying for expensive services that I don't want.

Given the reputations of Monzo, Starling and Revolut, those services obviously include customer support and fraud prevention. And when I looked at them for my personal banking a few years ago, the savings from not providing "expensive services you don't want" seemed not to come through in things like interest rates.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given the reputations of Monzo, Starling and Revolut, those services obviously include customer support and fraud prevention.

Monzo has very good fraud prevention - indeed it has a reputation for debanking people who have only been mildly naughty (e.g. evading a bit of tax by running obvious business transactions through a personal account) because its algorithms to detect stuff like that are so good.

If, in 2026, I have to telephone a company, it has failed. Though I've generally found its customer services chat to be fine. I just want a self-service banking approach that works, and it does.

 

[35B]

Monzo has very good fraud prevention - indeed it has a reputation for debanking people who have only been mildly naughty (e.g. evading a bit of tax by running obvious business transactions through a personal account) because its algorithms to detect stuff like that are so good.

If, in 2026, I have to telephone a company, it has failed. Though I've generally found its customer services chat to be fine. I just want a self-service banking approach that works, and it does.

We must be looking at different sources, as the first search I found on their reputation was a £21m fine (reduced from £30m) for lack of controls.

More generally, and for routine stuff, I completely agree about having to telephone a company. But not everything is routine*, and it's the complex stuff that proves whether a bank is or isn't up to scratch. Online reports suggest that Monzo's reputation for that is, at best, mixed.

Right now, my experience in terms of that balance is strongly in favour of NatWest/RBS (different skin, same back office). Good online services (app or website) that deal with 95%+ of the reasons I'd need to contact them, with well trained back office teams for calls, and branch staff who know and care about what they're doing, and can then communicate it well.

Interestingly, that includes both training customers to use the banking app (when I've been in the branch, that's not just been oldies), and also sensibly designed cash handling systems.

* - try dealing with an account in the name of Mrs X (dec'd), written in trust for her deceased daughter, belonging to the estate of a third person, in an online chat.

 

[Cdd89]

In most contexts I don't have any objection to cash - however, it is beyond time that it was banned for acceptance on local buses as it dramatically slows down journeys (and causes buses to bunch up).

The government, or perhaps more fairly the civil service, is addicted to high-infrastructure solutions in these sorts of areas, but I would argue it could be solved fairly simply with rules on all local bus operators:

1. They must offer either tap-on, or tap-on-tap-off, Express Travel payment (no further fares integration at this stage)
2. They must accept the national prepaid cash card as an Express Travel contactless payment card
3. They must not sell tickets onboard

The government could then produce a national prepaid cash card, which could be topped up anonymously at PayPoint shops using cash. This would just be a prepaid mastercard which is restricted to domestic transport merchants through the card issuer/network controls (no actual relation to the public transport operators).

 

[Falcon1200]

You can buy day smartzone tickets on both company's apps, which cuts out the paper bit.

Fair enough, but I do not use my phone for any financial transactions, and anyway as per my Post #8 phone tickets are not necessarily faster, and can be slower, than other types.

There are also some businesses (eg certain barbers) who only accept cash, why?

My local chippy in Oxford takes cards but prefers cash, presumably due to the transaction fees on the former. It is a long-established and reputable business!

 

[The exile]

If, in 2026, I have to telephone a company, it has failed. Though I've generally found its customer services chat to be fine. I just want a self-service banking approach that works, and it does.

If in 2026 I have to jump through hoops to speak to a real live human then the company has failed. I too want a system that works, but when it doesn’t or I can’t get it to do what I need, I expect to be able to speak to a knowledgeable human being, not some AI bot.

 

[Peter0124]

My local chippy in Oxford takes cards but prefers cash, presumably due to the transaction fees on the former. It is a long-established and reputable business!

Thats fine, however there should always be an option to accept cards regardless.

A barber shop wanted me to go to the cash machine to pay the bill because they don't take cards.