Suppose you resist a bank that forces you to access your account exclusively via some shitty phone app, which also requires you to buy a new smartphone. And suppose you refuse, so your only access to the bank account is via the card.
What happens when the time comes that (e.g.) the gov or a creditor demands a payment by credit transfer, not by card? Are you consequently forced by your obligation to make a payment to then buy a phone? Or do you have a right to manually order a payment from your bank by sending a written letter or something?
There is this law but I’m not sure it’s applicable:
REGULATION (EU) No 260/2012, Art.4: Interoperability
…
3. The processing of credit transfers and direct debits shall not be hindered by technical obstacles.
I think that law was really intended for the bank-to-bank segment of the transaction, not consumer to bank. I get the impression we have no codefied rights, just recommendations to lawmakers, such as:
The European Commission, in its 2012 Green Paper, insisted that standardisation in the mobile payments area should ensure full interoperability between mobile payment solutions, and favour open standards to ensure the mobility of consumers when they wish to change their telecom operator or bank.
…
In its Mobile Payments Initiatives Overview, the European Payments Council stated that different mobile payment solutions from multiple payment service providers should be able to coexist in the same mobile device. In its opinion, consumers should not be bound to a specific network operator or particular mobile equipment, but should be able to switch between payment service providers, with interoperability as a key feature needed to achieve these goals.
But to be fair that was written 10 years ago. Any headway?
Does this bank not have a website? Can you not access your account through a browser?
No, not anymore. They became app exclusive. Customers must become an Apple or Google patron, or just use the bank card. They also closed their shop doors and terminated their phone number. If you call them on their unpublished phone number, they insist: “email us” and they refuse to give any service over the phone. And their email goes through gmail (and no PGP key given). Paper letters are ignored. They also refuse manual transfers. The app is the sole means for transfers.
I think your bank is some guy working out of his garage, in Belarus.
Either that or two North Koreans with a laptop.
I have a friend in the UK that does her banking through the post office, is that common? Though I saw something about the royal mail being purchased the other day? Many elderly people can’t use a smartphone so smartphone only options definitely sound like a no go.
I heard postbank was eliminated in Germany but post office banking is still an option in other countries. I doubt any post office banks stand on their own. The one I’m aware of is just a proxy for another crappy bank.
Many elderly people can’t use a smartphone so smartphone only options definitely sound like a no go.
It’s somewhat convenient that tech illiterates are in the same boat with the streetwise (who are tech saavy enough to distrust commercial tech that’s being pushed down our throats). But there are efforts to divide us. Elderly folks are getting social helpers with tech, which will shrink those resisting enshitification of everything to a population that’s easier to marginalise. I also don’t suppose it will be long before the tech illiterate elderly are no longer with us anyway.
No, Postbank still exists in Germany, but it’s part of Deutsche Bank now. They mail you all sorts of forms and return envelopes, so you can do all banking via snail mail. But they also have an app and a website with 2FA and all. (The 2FA is initially set up via snail mail.)
Two come to mind but there will be a big caveat below: Either consumer protection: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32011L0083
Or more likely though the psd2 (I hope this one is the correct link, mobile…) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32015L2366
Now the big catch: you’d need to proof that you’re dependent on that bank with no alternative, otherwise it’s hard to argue that you are unfairly treated as it is up to reach company how to implement the psd2 securities requirements.
What happens if that you either agreed to their shorty app when signing up for a bank account or they changed their terms of service. If it’s the latter than you need to agree to the changes or change your bank.
It would get more interesting if you need a specific app or device to close your account - here I’d be completely out of my depth but I would guess that it then depends on the specific national implementation.
Remember that EU law usually needs to be translated into national law for you to be applicable.
For your second question that is even worse news: that’s for us as consumers to solve (depending a bit on the national implementation, at least in Germany companies and state are not anymore required to accept cash for invoices).
Edit: I answered only because you asked for the EU laws, I’m not at all familiar with the NL implementations and stumbled here from All :)
at least in Germany companies and state are not anymore required to accept cash for invoices
Yikes. That’s a shame. There is the EC Recommendation of 22 March 2010 (2010/191/EU) which wisely states:
A debtor can discharge himself from a payment obligation by tendering euro banknotes and coins to the creditor.
I am surprised Germany has gone against that. I thought cash was loved by Germans.
Oh yeah, cash is king here (to my personal demise I have to admit).
I guess it’s the other easy around, Germany never updated: BGB 241 allows for deviations of cash within individual terms. The state itself uses that privilege at least for some transactions (had to pay a service invoice via bank transfer only, no other payment methods accepted).
I looked it up now, I guess it’s even clearer: since 2023 only bank transfer or similar trackable transactions are allowed for real estate transactions.
Fascinating, thanks for the rabbit hole!
There was a story about a German guy insisting on paying his radio licensing fees in cash. He setup an escrow account and paid his invoices into that, so that the state could not claim he was just using cash refusal as an excuse not to pay. I don’t think I ever heard what came of the legal case.
Not European, but hopefully adding to the question…
There is a balancing act here. Ease of use vs security.
Yes access to one’s money should be as frictionless as possible; but you need the security to know that no rando can get into your accounts.
I’d prefer to see better options for MFA. Rather that you must use the banks app, you should be able to use any app that supports TOTP or your own TOTP device.
— sms isn’t secure, but it is basically universal
Otherwise for someone who doesn’t have a phone, they would have to bank like we did before the internet.
Security can be done well, but even the best security adds friction to ease of use
The EU has that covered as REGULATION (EU) No 260/2012 imposes 2FA.
But for me personally, I do not trust closed-source apps from surveillance advertisers running on a Google or Apple proprietary platform, no matter how well they do the 2FA. Even if the endpoint were impenetrable, I do not trust the bank itself not to snoop – in part because I do not trust the GDPR, which is scantly enforced and regularly disregarded to a laughable extent. And from the ecocide PoV, I refuse to throw away good hardware and support designed obsolescence. They can pry my old phone from my cold dead hands.
I mean, if you don’t trust any apps or the GDPR or the bank, at that point you should probably just keep the money in cash under your tinfoil hat…
you should probably just keep the money in cash
Of course. Cash would solve the problem. But creditors are refusing that now and also refusing cards at the same time. Otherwise the bank card could get cash out of the ATM and pay the creditors.
