Lloyds Bank to close 27 branches in May 2025
Lloyds Bank is set to close 27 branches in May in response to customers making fewer in-person visits. The shuttered branches will join the banking giant's larger list of at least 48 locations to close in 2025.
This move forms part of a broader trend, with thousands of branches closing in recent years. According to consumer group Which?, more than 6,300 bank and building society branches have closed since January 2015, equating to 53 closures on average every month. A statement on Lloyds Bank's website reads: 'Most customers are now using our Mobile Banking app, Internet Banking or calling us instead. This means they are using branches less.'
Hundreds of new 'Banking Hubs' have opened to help fill the gap left by high street bank closures, offering customers access to cash and everyday banking services, regardless of who they bank with. People can find their closest location here.
Charities are calling for stronger protection for in-person banking services, warning that the shift to digital risks leaving older and vulnerable people behind. Research by Age UK reveals that more than four million older Britons with bank accounts do not manage their finances online.
Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK, said: 'We applaud the banks for coming together to set up shared Hubs, but it's important that alternative services are set up speedily, especially in those areas with the greatest need.
'Physical spaces – whether a bank or building society branch, Banking Hub, or alternative suitable provision – must continue to exist so people can still carry out face-to-face tasks. The disappearance of face-to-face banking risks cutting a significant minority of the older population out of an essential service, making it difficult if not impossible for them to manage their money and maintain their independence.'
READ SOURCE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Which? accuses Sports Direct of misleading pricing tactics
UK retailer Sports Direct is facing scrutiny over its pricing tactics following an investigation by not-for-profit UK consumer group Which? The group has raised concerns about the use of reference prices on the company's website, suggesting that the savings advertised may not be genuine. The findings have led to a call for the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to investigate the matter. Which? said that its researchers analysed the prices of 160 products on the Sports Direct website and identified instances where the higher reference prices used to indicate savings did not seem authentic. The investigation specifically targeted the use of recommended retail prices (RRPs) and related terms such as manufacturer suggested retail prices (MSRPs) and suggested retail prices (SRPs) on the retailer's site. Sports Direct is known to employ RRPs to showcase potential savings to customers. However, Which? readers have frequently reported suspicions about these RRPs, with Sports Direct a recurrent subject of concern. According to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), consumers are likely to interpret RRPs as the standard market price, which may lead them to perceive Sports Direct's pricing as a significant bargain. But Which? says that its investigation revealed that other online retailers were not selling products at the RRP or MSRP levels quoted by Sports Direct. In many cases, competitors' prices were found to be equal to or lower than those offered by Sports Direct, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the reference prices used. The Sports Direct brand is owned by British sportswear and fashion retailer Frasers Group. In April 2025, Frasers entered a multi-year retail partnership with Accent Group to introduce and manage its Sports Direct brand in Australia and New Zealand. "Which? accuses Sports Direct of misleading pricing tactics" was originally created and published by Retail Insight Network, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Why do concert tickets cost so much these days? And is it all Ticketmaster's fault?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Concert ticket prices have risen sharply in recent years. Arena gig tickets have more than doubled, in real terms, since the turn of the century. For the biggest artists, increases have been bigger still. A basic standing ticket to see Oasis at Wembley Stadium on their last tour, in 2009, cost £44 (around £70 adjusted for inflation). The official price, when tickets for the Wembley gig in July went on sale, was £151. The average ticket for Taylor Swift's Eras tour in the UK was £206. This has become a political issue, and at the centre of the debate is the role of the world's largest ticket sales company, Ticketmaster, responsible for both these tours. The UK competition regulator launched an investigation into its sale of Oasis tickets, in particular into the use of "dynamic pricing". In March, President Trump signed an executive order promising "to bring common-sense reforms" to ticket sellers in America's live entertainment industry. If not a monopoly player, it's a near-monopoly, controlling more than 75% of concert ticket sales at major venues in the US, and about 60% in the UK. In 2010 it merged with the world's largest live events company, Live Nation, which controls more than 265 concert venues in the US; and owns or part-owns the Academy Music Group chain of venues, and festivals from Reading to Latitude, in the UK. Live Nation, now Ticketmaster's parent company, is also a major promoter (organising, funding and publicising music events), which promoted 54,000 events last year. It manages artists, too; and it's a big player in advertising and sponsorship, event parking, food and drink sales, merchandise and security. The US Department of Justice describes it as a "live entertainment ecosystem"; Liam Byrne MP, chair of the Commons Business Committee, says it has "more arms than an octopus". Live Nation "has faced allegations of predatory pricing, misleading fees, restrictive contracts, technical blunders, suppressing or colluding with competitors and generally abusing its monopolistic power", said Dorian Lynskey in The Guardian. Fans struggle to get tickets for big events, often facing technical problems, and long online queues; its app is notoriously awful and glitchy. Pricing is opaque. Which? has complained about the "drip pricing" of extra fees – on a £45 ticket, you might get a £6.10 service charge, a £1.75 facility charge, and a £2.75 order processing fee – making it hard to estimate the final price. As a result, Ticketmaster is very unpopular among fans. The country musician Zach Bryan released a live album called "All My Homies Hate Ticketmaster". A poll for More in Common found that 58% of Britons would like to see it nationalised. Michael Rapino, chief executive of Live Nation, claims that big concerts are still "massively underpriced". He may have a point. Demand is often high, and supply is limited. An estimated ten million fans wanted tickets for Oasis, so they could have been priced much higher, and still sold out. A live concert is a special experience; people, even on modest incomes, will pay large sums to see acts they love. And many forces have contributed to price rises. The internet has reduced music sales, so artists now depend on concert fees for nearly all of their income; big artists insist on a high proportion of the revenue from ticket sales. Shows have become more spectacular and expensive to stage. Inflation has been high, and VAT is 20%. The ticket price is shared between, in rough order: artist (including crew, transport etc.), venue, VAT, promoter and ticket seller. Ticketmaster – or a rival such as AEG – might pick up 10% of the total price. Live Nation says its ticket profit margins are less than 2%. Finally, "scalping" can also drive up prices. In the early 2000s, sites such as StubHub launched as legitimate platforms for fans to resell unwanted tickets. But many have been exploited by touts, who buy large numbers of tickets to resell at inflated prices. The problem has been made worse by scalper "bots", which bombard ticketing sites with purchases destined for resale. Such bots are illegal in the UK, but are hard to police. No. Last May, the US Justice Department filed an anti-monopoly suit against Live Nation; the then assistant attorney general, Doha Mekki, claimed that Ticketmaster is rife with "abuse, exploitation and self-dealing". The case is ongoing; it has been reported that it may try to break up the company. The UK Competition and Markets Authority found that Ticketmaster and Live Nation may have breached consumer laws by selling Oasis tickets at almost 2.5 times the standard price, without explaining that they came with no additional benefits, and by demanding a higher price than initially quoted after a lengthy queuing process. Many artists – Bruce Springsteen, Taylor Swift, Neil Young – have complained publicly about Ticketmaster. As far back as the 1990s, the US rock band Pearl Jam tried to organise a tour without using the company, but concluded that it was nearly impossible. There are, though, things that artists with substantial followings can do. They can reject dynamic pricing, as Coldplay and Neil Young have done. Or they can go further, like The Cure's Robert Smith. On The Cure's last tour, not only was dynamic pricing rejected, but tickets were priced at as little as £16, and resale was prohibited. Arguably, says Dorian Lynksey, Smith "made things awkward for artists by proving that they set the prices and dictate the conditions" – though they are happy for Ticketmaster to take the blame.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
British holidaymakers to miss out on compensation after EU rule change
Britons will miss out on compensation for delayed flights after Brussels adopted a rule change following complaints from airlines. Payouts that were previously triggered by delays exceeding three hours will now only be made after four hours of holdups, European transport ministers agreed. The new regulation, hammered out following a decade of discussions and bargaining over passenger compensation, will apply to all services from EU countries to the UK. For the time being, travellers headed from Britain to the Continent will still qualify for a refund when flight delays hit the three-hour mark, unless they are flying with an EU-registered airline. While raising the compensation threshold, ministers also agreed to increase the minimum level of payment from €250 (£210) to €300 for shorter journeys and to €500 for those above 3,500km (2,175 miles). The original regulation, known as EU261, was passed in 2004 with the aim of ensuring that passengers received money and assistance in the event of flights being cancelled at short notice. Following Brexit, the UK adopted it into law so that the rights of travellers remained unchanged. However, the Government will now have to decide whether to adopt the amendments for outbound flights or stick with the original version. Taking no action might be welcomed by consumer groups but would have consequences for UK airlines, which would be at a disadvantage to their European rivals. It could also affect fares, with Ryanair having claimed that EU261 costs passengers £7 per ticket. Airlines for Europe, an industry group, had pressed for a higher compensation threshold, arguing that extending it to five hours – as originally proposed by the European Commission – would allow 70pc of flights that are cancelled to be rescued. It argued said that airlines inevitably scrapped flights once compensation was triggered, especially since the payouts involved were often higher than the ticket prices charged. It said a five-hour threshold would have made it more practical for carriers to fly in replacement aircraft so that more flights would get away, potentially benefiting 10m passengers a year. A spokesman said: 'Getting to their destination is the primary concern of passengers, even if it means getting to bed or arriving at their holiday resort late. But with a low cancellation threshold it makes more sense to call off the flight and take that hit.' Airlines have also railed against the fact that the compensation applies whether delays are caused by a crew shortage or technical issue that might be laid at their door, or by severe weather or air traffic control issues beyond their control. A number of extraordinary circumstances are expected to be added as part of revisions to 31 different air passenger rights. The revisions must still clear the European Parliament but are expected to become law in the bloc by the end of the year. The Department for Transport said the UK did not have to amend its legislation in line with any changes from the EU, and that any potential future reforms would require careful consideration on their merits, and be subject to public consultation. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
