CHOICE membership

Discrimination against non mobile users


Once in a while I need to transfer largish sums of money from one bank to another. Today I went to transfer $30,000 from the ANZ to another bank (I do that every year as an annual pension). However, the ANZ has got more problematic since last year. Now you must have a mobile telephone to complete that transaction - and I’m one of that rare breed who does not use a mobile (except rarely).

Now, with ANZ, you must have something called a “Shield” which can only be set up using a mobile. Failing that, you can pay to have money transferred from your account, but you cannot do it online without a shield. They will not do it for you over the 'phone unless you pay for a “telegraphic transfer”, and the only option is to physically visit a branch and take the money out and carry it to the next destination.

The only option I was left with was to increase my daily limit to the maximum $10,000, and to take it out over a three day period. Insane. That’s progress ???

Do we Need to Regulate Google and Facebook

It sounds like they have added security measures to keep your money safe. I think that’s a good thing! Hopefully you find a solution that’s even more convenient than using the mobile security pass :slight_smile:


Yup … they are secure all right … so secure even I can’t get my hands on my own money! :grinning:
I understand why … but having experienced the security “features” of other banks, they are a bit over the top. Not quite as bad as one of the others for whom a dedicated device was required generating codes every time I wanted to access my account. There needs to be a balance between security and inconvenience.


I see the point in having another method of confirmation but why MUST it be a mobile? Why not a choice of landline or personal visit? It is done this way for the convenience of the bank not the customer.


Did they offer the option of a bank cheque?
Yes there is a fee, but relative to the amount it is very little.


How is this not convenient for the customer? Mobile two-way authentication it incredibly quick and incredibly simple. All you need is a mobile phone. Only 10% of Australians don’t have a mobile phone. Over 30% do not have a landline.


There is a principle here that one should be able to withdraw money from your own account without paying a fee to do so. I have various bank accounts and all allow easy transfers electronically, with adequate safeguards in place. All I wanted was a simple transfer from ANZ to another bank. In this day and age that’s not something that should necessitate physical bank cheques or any other manual process.


So I gather that you feel mobile 'phones should be compulsory for all? Mobile 'phones are used by a huge majority, but that should not disenfranchise those who choose not to. It’s interesting that you seem to feel that 10% of the population is effectively collateral damage. Most banks manage to process these transaction in a variety of ways, ensuring that all customers can use whatever system suits them. That makes sense.


I can see why they have introduced a second security level of authority in relation to external bank transfers, especially inthe age of instantaneous bank transfers to prevent unauthorised transactions in the event of an online account being compromised.

However, any changes in security levels should also consider how customers who don’t have the facilities or services to meet this secondary security level will be impacted and what alternatives exist to allow their past banking to continue into the future. It appears that ANZ has assumed that either all its customers have mobile phones or is unwilling to accept the risk of bank transfers without their adopted second security level being applied.

It is a shame if ANZ does not have non-mobile phone authentication options for those who don’t have a mobile phone as there are many in the community who chose or can’t afford them.

I am like you and don’t have one.

Fortunately we bank with another institution which has adopted RSA token technologies across all accounts which a customer is required to purchase ($20 every 3 years), instead of adopting a technology where the customer is required to provide the technology solution (mobile phone). While the $20 is not insignificant, at least it does provide some level of security and comfort when doing on line banking and works out to to cost about $0.13 per week - a small cost to pay.

I would be lodging a complaint with ANZ in relation to them excluding existing customers from future banking as a result of their adoption of thair mobile phone security measure. Wait and see what the response is, and if it is not satisfactory I would be looking at changing banks to onewhich has more (for non-mobile) user options.


Just figurative questions, not soliciting answers but the more I think about it the more problematic it could be in particular circumstances if the bank has zero flexibility.

As we are going overseas for a few months I wonder how authentication is going to work for me should I need to make a transaction requiring one while away.

Getting on the web is one thing to make transactions, but if your mobile is flat, stolen, or you are out of coverage it does seem more than a little customer abusive not to have options such as ringing in (you might have a landline - no SMS) or email. Is global roaming going to be required just in case?

I have an online saver account with Rabo. The RSA device is free as well as a pain to use; their mobile app is relatively better but the people who made it have an app quite distant from state of the art friendly.

As we continue toward the cashless society we seem to be getting dudded one way or another.


I sympathise with you @boblorel,
It’s your money and you want access to it any time you wish.
Surely another way could be found, by the Bank, to verify you.

Looking at it from a different point of view:
I wish I had had code verification applied when a very large amount of money was fraudulently taken out of my bank account.


I ended up ditching Rabo for exactly that reason. Having yet another device to store and manage was just too irritating and the process for accessing my money too laboured. I am also wary of mobile 'phone technology as another vulnerability - something else to hack into. Years ago I found huge difficulty in buying a pizza without the tomato base, but they eventually learned that it was possible; now I have problems living with systems that demand and expect me to interact via SMS, because they struggle to accept that not everyone uses that form of communication.

I understand the need for security options in an age where digital fraud and theft are significant problems, but some banks manage to achieve that without unduly inconveniencing their customers in the process.


I have used the ANZ, given it was for a long time the only bank in town.
We moved town, and the town we once lived in lost it’s bank. It shut down, but definitely not due to our loss of custom.

On one point concerning the ANZ you have our total support. ANZ have avoided providing an RSA or independent token security option to retail customers. The adds featuring a well recognised wheelchair tennis player relying on a fitbit suggest the ANZ is all for modern digitally enabled banking services.

My previous one on one correspondence with the ANZ requesting a token type service were brushed aside. The first such email is more than a decade past. Doubtless the ANZ will have forgotten by now!

But if you are from ’The bigger end of town’?
More than one option is available.

I first used token devices with Citibank in 2000!
We now use an RSA supported online banking service and obviously not the ANZ!


Because if you are one of the 10% it makes it impossible. Why should the customer have to conform to such a restrictive rule? Why can you not have a choice of methods so that everybody is catered for?

The 30% who do not have a landline is quite irrelevant. More relevant would be the percentage who have no phone at all.


The Suncorp one is easy to use…only downside is you need to take it with you if you travel and plan to do any online banking away from home/where RSA token is located. It is also used when confirming some online purchases as well…such as POLi and some overseas payment sites (noticed with some travel and accommodation sites when booking OS travel) which require sign in to verify/authenticate the purchase.

We have had two problems over the past 10 years…once the code was out of sync and cause us being locked out…a simple phone call and a few minutes later all sorted.

The second was some of the LCD panels on the RSA token stopped working. Simply sorted with a phone call and banking access was temporarily granted using a fixed code until the replacement RSA token arrived (which had more time until expiry than the faulty one).

Apart from that, has been no issue to use.


Sadly, not from the bigger end of … well … anything really. :neutral_face:
However, I have written to them, so I’ll report back when they realise the error of their ways and rectify the problem. In other words … don’t hold your breath!


My bank had an alternative verification system that sends a code that can be picked up on my computer or on my iPad without having a mobile phone connection


Living proof that some banks are more accommodating than others! It’s not rocket science, but some try to make it that way. :worried:


It is more than inconvenient for customers - Consider the person who cannot use a mobile phone due to a disability (impaired vision alone, or combined with impaired hand dexterity).


Even if you have a mobile phone you have to be in range. Not all of Australia has mobile range. Think rural.