Agile Business Solutions

Category: User Experience

Marcus Joint Account Opening a Design Delight

Following our series highlighting user experience design failings, this post runs through a great example of a well thought through user journey. We’ll show you, and other financial organisations, that it is indeed possible to provide an effective joint account opening process without the need for paper or post.

Context

In Yorkshire Building Society Design Failings – part 2 we showed you one example of how some financial services providers ignore the digital user needs of joint account holders. Although these providers offer the latest mobile Apps and promote online access as their primary delivery channel they fail to deliver for some user types. Joint account holders are often classified as lower priority and revert to paper or physical channels resulting in lengthy delays.

User authentication is often cited as the reason for the poor joint account opening UX. The primary account holder begins the online account opening process but the introduction of a secondary account holder results in complexities and the provider’s product owner decides to digitise that part later citing Minimum Viable Product or MVP! I guess the account opening project team get so focused on delivering primary use case scenarios they never get around to implementing the alternatives.

However, joint account holders, together with an increasing aging population, are an important cohort of user types and should not be ignored. Although there may be fewer joint accounts, their average savings balances are often larger and so it makes sense for providers to consider their online needs.

Doing it right

Marcus, by Goldman Sachs, are of course a new entrant to UK consumer banking having launched here in 2018. So you may argue they don’t carry the legacy of traditional paper based processes that incumbent UK financial organisations have endured.

On their website’s About us section Marcus highlights they combine over 150 years of Goldman Sachs’ financial expertise so you may think there’s a legacy in old ways. However, Marcus also mention this is combined with the innovation of a fin-tech and that they want to “help you manage your savings easily and effectively.” As I’ll show, Marcus have indeed managed to deliver a fully online joint account opening process.

So can this simple philosophy of putting the user’s need before that of the product team’s delivery be the reason for the success? It’s easy to dismiss corporate mission statements or perhaps simply ignore them when embarking on a new agile delivery. Here at Storycase, we’ve seen several digital transformation programmes with a plethora of mission objectives and hierarchies of target operating models were it’s too easy to loose sight of the hapless users.

Driven by user needs

In a joint account opening process there are two primary users. And that’s the problem for an online delivery channel in which there’s usually only one authenticated user. How can a second user be part of the journey when they don’t have a user account and are not logged in? Let’s just revert to paper, right? No. For Marcus and other enlightened providers paper is not an option as it does not align with the corporate mission and certainly does not meet the user’s need.

Let’s look at how Marcus solves this. When you chose to apply for a joint account. You and your joint applicant will both need your own email address, because this is what you’ll use to log into your account. Both need to be present during the application as you’ll each have your own part to complete. You will be taken through the application first, then the other.
You have to successfully complete your part before they can agree to open an account for you.

Simple and effective. Of course, each applicant has to answer questions to ensure Marcus can identify the individual and pass the AML regulations that apply. And as a joint account holder, some of your personal information may be visible to the other joint account holder. But this should be reasonable as it’s a joint account!

Modelling this journey with swim lanes demonstrates how the first applicant’s online session is used to pass from one applicant to another. The second applicant doesn’t need to login on their mobile or laptop, they simply pass control between each other using one device.

Once the joint account application has passed verification and email is sent to each applicant to set up their online account. This way each applicant can choose their personal security credentials. Overall a smooth user experience which enables immediate account opening for both applicants. I should point out that each applicant must pass an online verification process and this will inevitably restrict certain people with insufficient criteria.

UX design features

The design team at Marcus have also made it smoother for applicants as they step through the data entry screens. Here are some examples.

Dates

Notice the expected date format is shown in the heading along with the hint text that pre fills the date. As you enter a character the hint is overwritten and separators appear automatically. If you make a mistake and backspace the hint reappears. This makes it super easy to use and avoid mistakes.

As you expect, if you move away from an incomplete entry the data issue is highlighted:

Marcus has followed an industry standard and used a red colour to draw attention to errors albeit the only data entry in error above is not actually red! Accessibility has also been considered with an exclamation icon and a textual error description for screen readers.

May 5, 2026
Yorkshire Building Society Design Failings – part 2
YBS Session Expired – Data Lost

Here at Storycase we’ve been involved in digital transformation programmes for both the private and public sector. Working with several of industry’s best architects and designers we understand what’s needed to deliver a service that meets the customer’s needs without costing the earth.

With this lens we’re posting a series of articles to highlight failings we’ve found while using digital services. The intention is to name and shame – not maliciously but to put pressure on organisations to change the way they operate – and to deliver services that work.

As bank and building society branches close we’ve come to rely on online services and mobile apps for our daily financial transactions. When these do not work as expected we justifiably get annoyed and the stress levels in our daily lives are raised. So what went wrong at YBS when trying to open a joint account and what lessons can we learn?

Yorkshire Building Society – YBS Joint Account Opening Problems

As mentioned in our previous post Yorkshire Building Society Design Failings – with increasing inflation rate here in the UK, like many customers with some cash savings we need to open a new YBS account to get a better interest rate. YBS fail to pass on bank base rate increases to existing savers while immediately hiking mortgage rates. Building societies create new account variants that pay a higher interest and fail to pass on rate hikes on older accounts penalising existing customers who fail to act.

So after less than a year of opening an account we must apply for a new account to chase top rates. It sounds easy – just apply online today! No it’s not that easy at all and here’s why.

The use case we need is to open a joint account and that’s not been considered a minimum viable product by YBS. While the online form does indeed provide a joint account option, selecting it takes the user down a rabbit hole.

The form blindly asks for the full details of the joint account holder including a password but does not explain why. And entering all these superfluous details takes time that’s not been allowed so the online session can time out when the customer clicks submit.

Adding a simple question – Does the joint account holder already have an online account? and if so entry of a username would avoid confusion. But no, the first account holder – they must have an online account in order to apply – is forced to type in the joint holder’s full name, phone numbers, email addresses and passwords that are all unnecessary and so infringe GDPR.

Bad service design

Of course the simplest way for existing joint account holders to open a new variant of an existing account eg from a Saver Plus Issue 12 to Saver Plus Issue 13 is to offer an upgrade on the existing account. This enables all account holder to be pre-filled but would be too easy and defeats the real object in YBS creating the new issue in the first place.

Faced with YBS’s joint account opening form the customer has two options. Neither are good. The first option is to enter the second account holders details including passwords to match the online account that already exists. The second is to give up with opening a joint account and apply to add a second account holder later – which can only be done via post.

If the second account holder does not have an online account the current form makes more sense but the password should only be set up by the second user at first login to avoid security issues.

Adding a second account holder is not an online option even for an online only savings account so a paper form must be posted out and returned. With severe postal delays due to Royal Mail strikes and staff shortages here in the UK customers want to avoid post.

Both journeys will time out if the user does not enter all the information within an unspecified time period or the session will timeout without warning. Clearly no user research or UX has shaped these journeys – I wonder why?

Clearly it is not in YBS’s financial interest to improve the account opening journey for existing savers – it’s why they created the new account variant in the first place. We complained about the joint account opening experience when it happened a year ago and nothing’s been done. The user journey is still broken.

Can it get any worse?

Well, yes it can. After calling YBS customer services and being advised to clear cookies or try another browser and try again (we did neither) we persisted with the joint account user journey.

Initially it looked successful – the account was opened with an email to both account holders. But the joint account was not visible to the second account holder despite the registration email stating it would be activated overnight.

It took a further phone call to learn that YBS systems can take up to ten days to merge details and a temporary customer number would be posted out in the meantime. No mention of this online or in the email. Again, the user journey has not been considered.

Design Failing Summary
- Account opening form times out without warning – all data entered is lost and customer has to restart the journey.
- Joint account holder credentials – first applicant forced to enter second account holder’s password
- No option to use an existing joint account details to open a new account – this would avoid needless data entry.
Come on YBS – fix your poor online service design or better still, stop the bad practice of spawning new account variants to penalise existing savers.
September 18, 2023
Yorkshire Building Society Design Failings
Here at Storycase we’ve been involved in digital transformation programmes for both the private and public sector. Working with several of industry’s best architects and designers we understand what’s needed to deliver a service that meets the customer’s needs without costing the earth.

With this lens we’re posting a series of articles to highlight failings we’ve found while using digital services. The intention is to name and shame – not maliciously but to put pressure on organisations to change the way they operate – and to deliver services that work.

Yorkshire Building Society – YBS Internal Transfer Problems

As bank and building society branches close we’ve come to rely on apps for our daily financial transactions. When apps do not work as expected we justifiably get annoyed and the stress levels in our daily lives are raised. So what went wrong at YBS and their app?

With increasing inflation rate here in the UK, like many customers with some cash savings we need to move money between accounts and providers seeking best interest rates. Larger banks and some building societies notoriously delay or fail to pass on bank base rate increases to savers while immediately hiking mortgage rates. Building societies create new account variants that pay higher interest and fail to pass on rate hikes on older accounts penalising existing customers who fail to act.

Profit’s lie in the difference between deposits they receive from customers and the money providers lend so it’s no surprise that their savings accounts and business processes are designed to maximise profits.

Customers need to open new accounts chasing the best rates and move funds from one account to another. So there’s an incentive for providers to make it difficult to do this and let fiscal drag increase revenue.

My use case with YBS was to simply transfer funds from a savings account to another savings provider. We may well close the accounts if the issues highlighted are not addressed but that’s another story.

Step 1 – transfer between internal accounts

Each new account needs a separate third-party payee set up if you want to transfer funds out. This involves managing payees and entering the external account name and details but needs verifying with a small amount before sending larger sums so we’d not done this on the new account. As we had already set up the correct payee for an older account, where the rates had plummeted, we needed to do an internal transfer between accounts.

When the YBS app starts up it shows the balance on each account so it’s easy to see which account has the funds that need moving.

I begin by using the app to transfer funds internally from account A to account B. Using Transfers this is easy as the internal accounts show up when selecting the destination.

Step 2 – return to view account balances

On confirmation the app returns to the home screen and the balance for account A has decreased as expected but the balance for account B did not increase. When I click to view account B details the transfer transaction is not shown. Where has the money gone?

So I try closing the app and login again – I’m thinking maybe it’s poor design and a restart will refresh the account details. Still the home screen account balances don’t reflect the transfer between accounts – the money I transferred appears to have vanished. Clicking into account B the credit transaction does now show along with the revised account balance but it’s different to the balance on the home screen – it’s very confusing. So there is a data caching issue – I had to exit the app for it to refresh the transaction list – but why did the main account balance screen still fail to show the correct values?

Step 3 – attempt transfer out

So next I try to make the payment from account B to the external account that’s already set up and verified. I enter the amount and click confirm. I get an error message – There are insufficient funds in the account to make the payment!

Ouch. So I transfer funds internally and I can’t access the money I’ve just transferred. That’s not a good customer experience. I blocked – is it deliberate?

When apps or online journeys fail it’s often due to ‘security’ measures that providers have hastily put in place in response to scams and online fraud which has taken over from the bygone bank raid. In my case I don’t suspect it’s a deliberate act by YBS to stop me making the transfer as I see the account balances are incorrect. But I’m wondering why such a common journey has not been fully tested by YBS before releasing the app – after all they’ve had three years in which to get it right.

Step 4 – call YBS customer services

I call the support number and wait in a queue listening to distorted music and a voice telling me how YBS are very busy at the moment and it’s faster to carry out things online. I wait patently.

After ten minutes a real human answers and I explain the problem. They advise me to logout and wait 10 minutes. I explain I’ve done this while I’ve been waiting to speak to someone and am still seeing the message about insufficient funds. Well you will just have to wait longer they advise me again. I ask how long and am told as YBS is a building society their systems don’t work like banks and some accounts can take time for balances to show.

This raises an eyebrow or two and I ask if they know this why they don’t include a warning in the app to avoid customers panicking and having to call. I ask if they can see the transfer I’ve just made from their system to reassure me. They can and so I ask if they can make the payment instead as we’re set up for telephone banking. They do so successfully with no need to wait. I then ask for a compliant to be logged detailing the scenario.

Why should the customer be blocked from making a transfer when the funds are clearly present and the transfer can be made using an internal system?

What really annoyed me about the whole experience with YBS is the attitude to their customers. They know their systems don’t work and have a story to feed customers that obfuscates the truth. There’s no reason for a building society account to behave differently from a bank when moving monies between internal accounts. Clearly external transfers make suffer different constraints but this should not be used as an excuse for poor system design internally.

There’s no incentive for YBS to improve this experience because it’s literately in their interest to make it hard for customers to access money and move to better accounts.

To add insult to injury the reason we installed the YBS app was in response to a YBS Money Guide email to highlight the app’s benefits:

This month the YBS Savings app turns 3! Since we launched it in 2020, the app has continued to grow and develop. We now have over 300,000 registered users who continue to use it, and we are constantly looking to develop and add new features. Making it even easier to access your savings! If you haven’t already checked out our app, look at our guide for getting started.
YBS Money Guide email

Easier to access your savings? This means there’s over 300,000 customers that have or will find they can’t make the external payment they need if they follow this user journey. And they will end up calling the support number creating the high call volume. It’s a vicious circle where the customer ends up suffering due to incompetent system design.

Lessons learned

I don’t know what architecture YBS use but clearly there are several layers between the master system of record and the cached views surfaced through app, web and customer services deliver channels. I’ve represented an example of how this could occur below.

Each layer may well cache the account balance to take the load off the master database and this can lead to the confusing state I experienced. Poor system design appears to have omitted to refresh the cached values after an internal account transfer. So the new account balance is not available for validation when making another transfer. Login out or restarting the app refreshes some cached balances but not all indicating the server side caches could be out of date.

If I was writing out a ServiceNow ticket to describe the problems I’d mention the discrepancies between what the customer sees and what actually exists in the system of record. The balance should be consistent.

User needs

So what are the user needs and how have YBS failed to meet them?

Here’s a set of user stories that try to capture what the customer wants followed by the business. We’ll let you the reader decide which is right.
```
As an online customer
I want my account balances to reflect my account transactions immediately
So that I have confidence the actions I perform are obeyed correctly
So that I don't worry that money has been stolen from my account
So that I can carry out further actions with my money
```
```
Given a customer has two immediate access savings accounts A and B
And a transfer amount M is within the limits on the accounts
When a transfer is made from account A to account B for amount M
Then the balance for account A is debited by M
And the balance for account B is credited by M
```
```
Given a customer has transferred amount M from account A to account B successfully
When a further transfer payment is requested from account B
Then the current balance is used for account funds validation and not a cached value
```
```
As a financial savings provider
I want to delay presenting account balances to customers when they make transactions
So that I can earn maximum interest from customers deposits 
```
We hope we’re wrong and YBS have not deliberately designed funds transfer user journeys to cause friction and stress to its customers. But we’ve experienced similar behaviour from other financial providers that disregard user experience which makes us skeptical of ethical product management. Or maybe it’s the minimum viable product syndrome that plagues some poorly managed agile delivery programmes.

Postscript

YBS did respond to our complaint and upheld it, offering compensation for the time wasted. This was a welcome gesture but we did emphasis the only way to resolve this issue is to fix the underlying stale data cache or whatever reason YBS have for implementing this defective system behaviour.
September 7, 2023
NS&I How did service design go so wrong?

Here in the UK we have National Savings and Investments branded as NS&I which provide popular savings products to the public. NS&I raise revenue for the UK Government and in 2020 delivered £11.6 billion of Net Financing.

So you would think customer service is top on the director’s agenda to ensure smooth running and secure the income stream from its 25m customers. We’re just one of the customers that have become disillusioned with service and if TrustPilot’s NS&I reviews are representative we’re not alone.

What’s gone wrong at NS&I?

Simply, it’s very difficult to speak to an NS&I service advisor anymore. Previously customers picked up the phone or walked into post office to buy Premium Bonds, cash ISAs and Index Linked savings products. As business moved online NS&I moved more of their account opening and management online via their website.

Poorly designed UX

Like many organisations that have built businesses using efficient call centres, NS&I decided automation is the way forward. When you try to call NS&I now you are greeted with a voice from a virtual assistant that sounds like a real person. Unfortunately they don’t say they are virtual so the unsuspecting customer may be lead down a series of rabbit holes as they think they are speaking to a human.

Of course generation Z would likely get they are talking with a virtual assistant immediately as they’d seen the website – but granny or grandpa or generation X may take a little longer to twig. When you do manage to convince the bot they are not up to the task and you need to speak to a real human it all goes wrong. You are told they are experiencing a very high call volume and that the wait time is over 60 minutes. Yes, you heard right, not sixteen, sixty. Do you have over an hour to waste?

Who ever signed off the IVR contract must have been crazy. We can imagine the meeting. “Okay, so with this new IVR we just spent zillions on we can reduce the call centre staff FTE count by 90% right? And we can do that before the end of Q2 just as we roll out the MVP right? So every one agrees, right.

Wrong. They failed to think through the service design and volumetrics for the key user journeys. And I bet they failed to consider non-functional requirements, security risk assessment and so on. Here’s why.

Simple fact – over 25m customers are rich pickings for fraudsters. Not all customers will have or want to use online services no matter how much you want them to. NS&I’s loyal customers got used to picking up the phone and talking to helpful call centre staff. When existing customers call they are told how many of their needs can be handled much faster by visiting the website.

With call wait times over an hour there’s clearly too few staff to service customers. So why do customers call? In our case we’d tried to register for online or phone service and got an error message about a temporary password that had expired and to call the NS&I help desk.

So you can see the chicken and egg user journey the fine service designers have set up at NS&I. For clarity, here are some scenarios.

Scenarios

Scenario A: Existing customer has no online account and calls NS&I and is persuaded to try online

Customer calls and IVR tells them it’s much faster online. Customer goes online googles NS&I and follows signage to register. Customer starts registration entering account number and is told their temporary password has expired and to call the help desk. Customer is confused as they don’t remember ever having a temporary password. That’s because either someone else has entered their account number or they tried to register some years ago and gave up. Customer calls and IVR asks why they are calling. Customer says they are having trouble with a temporary password. IVR tells them it’s much faster to reset their password online using the forgotten password option. Customer goes online and clicks the forgotten password option. Customer enters their account number and surname and are shown an error telling them to call the technical help desk on the same number they had called earlier. Customer calls and IVR asks them why they called. Customer says they want the help desk and are told its much faster online. Customer getting angry says they want to speak to help desk IVR says okay, what do you want to speak about. Customer just says put me through to help desk and are told they will be put through. IVR tells them the call wait time is 60 minutes and plays musak.

And so it goes. It’s woeful customer experience.

Clearly the user journeys don’t fit the user’s needs. Forgotten passwords must be high on the probability and need an automated solution. The call centre queues are being flooded by requests that don’t need human intervention.

The problem appears to be a dire inability to design user journeys that work. I bet they only considered true customers. How about this one?

Scenario B: Fraudster steals letter from NS&I to customer about premium bond win.

Fraudster steals post, opens letter and finds customer’s name, NS&I account number and details of their premium bond winnings and holder’s number. Lucky fraudster. Fraudster goes to NS&I website and clicks Register online. Fraudster enters account number, name and address from letter and is told to expect a temporary password in the post.

We could go on but leave the scenario to play out in the reader’s imagination – no point in making it any easier for fraudsters.

One key underlying problem here is how to authenticate customers given there’s no human interaction. NS&I are not alone in introducing two factor authentication as the traditional username and password is too insecure. NS&I still insist on giving customers a user number that few will every remember so have to write it down somewhere. Why not allow users to choose their own user ID such as a user name they can remember? Why not use OAuth? There are many better ways.

August 11, 2022
User Experience Rants – MBNA

Something as simple as txt message notifications should not be difficult. So when MBNA confusing me by sending new messages, different to the usual notifications, I called customer services. The experience and response I received made me more angry and worthy of this post.

It started with a new txt message from MBNA rather than the usual anonymous 83838 number so I took notice. “We are due to receive a payment of £1234.56 from your bank. If there are no restrictions on MBNA card ending 1234 the payment value is available to spend”. (I’ve changed the numbers for obvious reason). This did not make sense. Why were they telling me they were due a payment? Had I forgotten to pay? I usually set up an online payment in advance so I double checked and yes, it had been made.

So I called MBNA. After the frustration of being misunderstood by their automated voice response system I got through to customer services. Why have your txt notifications changed and what does it mean? I enquired. I was told MBNA are now part of a new bank and they are taking the opportunity to improve communication! Really? I ask the advisor what exactly “We are due to receive a payment from your bank…” meant. Well, we have received a payment from your bank and it’s due to be credited to your account. Okay, so why not say that I ask? It’s the same thing he says.

How can “We are due to receive” and “We have received” be the same thing I say. The first is a call to action for me to respond as I think I’ve missed a payment. How many people start off thinking there’s been a problem and pay twice I wondered. The second is a confirmation that my payment has been received, I’m reassured no action needed. It’s simple clear language, surely?

I raise it as a complaint. I’m put on hold. After ten minutes of calming music the call is terminated. I receive another helpful txt message. This one says” Sorry your call was cut off unexpectedly. To discuss and progress further, please contact us on 03456 062062 stating Resolve 11234567 cut off. I call the number. The AVR asks why I’m calling and I say Resolve 11234567 cut off. It then asks again why I’m calling. It seems the AVR does not understand. So I just say hash hash. And after a while I get to talk with customer services. A call centre once told me that pressing ## cancels you out of AVR systems and it seems to work. When I get to customer services they don’t know anything about my previous call so I repeat my sorry story.

“Is there anything else I can help you with?” they ask. Well I noticed the other txt message I get says “A payment of £25 is due on your MBNA credit card ending 1234 by 04/03/19. For more information, check your latest statement or log in to mbna.co.uk.” Why is the amount always £25 and not the full amount needed to pay as listed on the statement? Well it’s the minimum payment you must make, he tells me. But why does it not say, A minimum payment is due on your account? Or A payment of £123.45 is due…? “Data protection”, I’m told “we can’t send you your actual balance as that’s not allowed under DPR”. Okay, so why do did you tell me how much you were due to receive from my bank then? I ask. Silence.

Could it be that £25 is what MBNA want me to pay so that I incur the highest debt and pay the high credit charge for the longest period? Maybe I’m too cynical but that’s the main reason I can think of for the poor UX design and awful user experience. MBNA you should rethink how you treat your customers. I’m looking for a new card provider.

June 5, 2019
Fraudsters opening BT business accounts
So there has been much written about online scams and fraud affecting phone companies but little on the customer experience impact. My recent encounter with BT when reporting an incident raises several concerns and highlights a catalogue of UX failures.

It all started with two near identical letters from BT requesting bank account details to set up direct debits for accounts I’d not ordered. The letters suggested direct debit was the easy way to pay your bill. Trouble is these were not my bills. You would think it’s easy to contact BT and report the fraud. I reached for the phone and dialled 150. The automated voice recognition asked in a few words why I was calling. “To report a fraud” I say. Ok is this the number you want to speak about? it asks. Well no I thought so I key in option 2. Enter the number you want to call about it demanded. Hmmm, the helpful letters don’t mention any phone number, in fact the letters fail to describe any products or services the bill is in connection with. So I just key double hash and join a queue that keeps telling me how important my call is to BT and how they are so very busy at the moment.

Let’s just think about this journey. I ask to report a fraud and am told okay, I don’t have a phone number I want to talk about and am not given another option other than to hack the system with a double hash. (I remembered one helpful bank telling me this trick and it seems to work).

I hang on for 7 minutes to be greeted by a real person who wants to know my name and first line of my address and postcode. The guy has no idea why I’m calling so telling the AVR was pointless. So I say I want to report what I suspect is a fraud. I run through the details in the letters and I tell him the account numbers. He puts me on hold, another 5 minutes pass and he says the account is a business account that he does not have access to. He suggests I contact business team and asks if I want to be put through. It’s gone 7pm I say are they still available? Yes, he says and puts me through. After a short delay I hear an automated recording telling me the team are available between 9am and 6pm Monday to Friday and 1pm on Saturdays. Great, after 19 minutes I hang up.

So I have another go. This time I try “Fraud, fraud, fraud” as the reason for calling and wait 5 minutes for a human to answer. This time I launch staring in to I want to report a fraud on a business account. Daniella says she’ll try BT security and puts me on hold. After a few minutes she comes back and says I can’t speak directly with security as they need her to ask me some questions about the account first. I repeat what I told the first guy and she relays this to ‘Security’. What details do they need I ask? Postcode she says. Well try my postcode I gave her I suggest. After another period on hold Daniella returns to say BT security need details on when the business account was applied for to log the issue and security don’t have access to business accounts. It’s catch 22. How would I know when the account was requested if I did not set up the account! I ask for a call reference number but Daniella does not have one. She suggests I must call BT business when they are open tomorrow so they can speak to security. I hang up, another 30 minutes wasted.

Let’s review the user experience so far. I need to report a fraudulent use of my identity by BT to BT. I try calling the BT care number but my reply as to why I’m calling is not confirmed as being recognised. Front line agents only have access to residential account details and they won’t connect me with security department because they can’t validate. BT care can’t log the report for me and won’t let me do so directly. The process is clearly broken.

So I decide to tweet. Social networking to the rescue. Next day, I scan my replies and see BT business care agree my experience is not good, suggest I call BT security and give me the direct number. It’s 0800 321 999 if you need it by the way. One more time I call. I get another IVR system with 5 choices from checking identify of BT worker to reporting bomb threats.Then another 5 or so choices none of which seem appropriate so I pick 4. In the end I speak to Phil. Someone sensible at last. He asks me many of the same questions but there’s no mention of needing another system. In fact his demeanour reminds me of the conscientious policeman noting every detail down and checking it. He gives me an SIR number (security incident report number). I ask him why BT care did not pass me though yesterday. He did not know, we’re open 24×7 he says.

It will take up to 10 working days to get a response to BT about my report and complaint. I’m promised they will put an immediate disassociation order on the fraudulent accounts so I’m not connected to them. I raise the issue of bad credit rating as the bills won’t be paid by me. Phil suggests I should be okay but to raise it when they followup the report.

Next day the postman leaves a BT Business Smart modem on the doorstep. The label has a helpful instruction to leave with a neighbour if addressee is out but that’s not been read. It’s addressed to me, no mention of a ‘trading as’ company name, obviously BT fulfilment are more used to dealing with residential customers and reuse the standard label maybe. I think about calling 150 and having a tedious conversation with AVR and a Care advisor but decide to let BT security know instead. I can try out the SIR number to see if it’s a key.

Phil doesn’t answer this time, it’s a nice lady who’s a bit taken aback by my opening comment that intranet.secuity.bt.com mentioned in their IVR returns a 404. “Oh, that’s for internal use only” she explains. Ah okay, so how would I know that? I ask. Apparently the 0800 number for BT security is also used by BT staff most of the time and nobody’s thought to set up an IVR fork to help befuddled customers get a sensible user experience. No matter the lady was very helpful and the SIR works a treat to update yesterday’s report.

So I’ve written this post with intended sarcasm triggered by a catalogue of bad user experience from BT that I feel should have been far better. Some major questions I suggest BT should ask themselves are:
1. Why can a BT business account be opened without sufficient checks being made to verify the validity of the identity of the requestor?
2. Why is the main BT care AVR so poorly designed in that a) it fails to confirm it’s understood what the reason for the call is; b) the flow choices have not been designed to cover sufficient scenarios.
3. Why have BT care advisors not been trained to hand off requests to report fraud to avoid the farcical situation above.
4. Why have security scenarios crossing BT residential and BT business not been thought through?
Names may have been changed to protect the innocent.
August 7, 2017