West Brom Building Society picks Deloitte and 10x for digital makeover
0
The UK's eighth largest building society has opted for 10x's cloud-based core system, which will let the mutual tailor products using a range of ready-made modules designed to take away unnecessary complexity, cost and risk.
Meanwhile, West Brom is also adopting Converge by Deloitte, a composable accelerator designed to help banks and building societies deliver new digital capabilities at pace.
The multi-phase programme will see West Brom's digital savings products enhanced, the migration of existing accounts to Converge and the 10x platform, and the unlocking of greater value across its mortgage portfolio.
Jonathan Westhoff, CEO, West Brom Building Society, says: 'We chose to work with Deloitte and 10x because they understand what matters to us as a mutual - our customers. Working on this together is an exciting step forward in building the digital service and technology we want for the future."
Founded by former Barclays boss Antony Jenkins, 10x is reportedly weighing a sale.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
25 minutes ago
- Times
We need Mum's £300k for her care, but Santander is ignoring us
My mother is 97 and lives in a care home, so I have power of attorney to manage her finances. She has been a Santander customer for decades and has about £300,000 in a fixed-term bond. This was due to mature in May, so in April I called the bank to instruct it to send £100,000 to her nominated bank account, and move the remaining amount into a new one-year savings bond paying 4.05 per cent interest. To my surprise, Santander said it could not accept my instruction because I was not recorded as having power of attorney. Given that I registered as her attorney in 2015 and had set up this bond on her behalf last year, I said this didn't make any sense but the bank refused to speak to me about her account. I raised a complaint and expected this error to be resolved quickly. But the bank still wouldn't take my instructions when I called two weeks later. At that point I started to get concerned because we need that £100,000 to pay my mother's care home fees in August. This is very alarming indeed. In the meantime, her bond has matured and the £300,000 has automatically rolled into an account paying just 1 per cent interest. Essentially Santander ignored my instructions, leaving my mother missing out on hundreds of pounds of interest and unable to access her own cash. Santander finally admitted that it had made a mistake and promised to resolve this, but then closed my complaint without sorting anything Hampshire • Blocked drains and blood stains: our Airbnb guest cost us £15,000 Care home fees are usually eye-watering, so you were understandably anxious to get your mother's funds ready for the next payment. Given that you were moving the money around on her behalf and had a registered power of attorney, this should have been a reasonably straightforward request for Santander to complete. A lasting power of attorney is a legal document which lets you make decisions on someone else's behalf if they have lost the ability to manage their own affairs. They must have set up the power of attorney when they still had capacity and the document must have been approved by the Office of the Public Guardian. Powers of attorney must be registered with a bank before you can manage someone else's account for them. You had registered your document with Santander in 2015, so everything should have been in place for you to move your mother's money and open and close accounts for her. Although you had used your rights as her attorney when you set up the fixed-term bond in April last year, Santander explained that while it received the money, the request to register you as her attorney on that account wasn't processed properly, which it said was down to human error. Santander then closed your complaint before it had been resolved, which the bank said that a complaints handler had done by mistake — another human error, which it apologised for. You did all the right things by raising a complaint and, given that Santander had not addressed your issues, your next move could have been to escalate your complaint to the ombudsman. I was able to step in before it came to that, which spared you some added stress. The bank has now finally carried out your instructions, so that your mother has £100,000 in her account and the remaining £200,000 is tucked away in a one-year bond paying 4.05 per cent. Santander has also given her £604 in backdated interest, plus £250 compensation. Santander said: 'We are really sorry for the experience Howard received and can confirm that his access has been rectified, and the savings have been transferred according to his instructions.' You said: 'It was only once I came to you that anything constructive happened, so many thanks for your help.' In June I had a notification from my Revolut banking app asking me to authorise a payment to the food delivery company Uber Eats. As I have never used Uber Eats, I declined the transaction, which was for £20.87. A couple of minutes later I had another notification for the same transaction, and declined the payment again. But £20.87 was deducted from my account. I then checked my transactions and realised that a couple of days earlier there had been another payment to Uber Eats for £16.38. I had not authorised this payment either. I haven't lost my phone or my Revolut card, so I'm really concerned as to how this happened. I immediately contacted Revolut through the app and after some wrangling with the dreaded chatbot, was finally put through to a human who said that both transactions would be reversed. Relieved by this prompt action, I felt sure that Revolut would refund me and that would be the end of the matter. But it then claimed that I had authorised both payments on my phone. I said this wasn't correct but Revolut said there was nothing more it could do. It would seem that Revolut's banking security leaves much to be desired. While the amounts are relatively small, I am left feeling that the company won't keep my money Liverpool • 'Thieves went on a £21k shopping spree with my Revolut cash' Worryingly it sounds like someone must have used your card details for a fast-food spree. While I was pleased that Revolut had immediately cancelled your card and sent you a new one after this incident, it was unacceptable that it tried to claim that you had authorised these payments when you clearly had not. Being a victim of fraud can leave you feeling shaken up; Revolut left you feeling even more vulnerable. It sounded like there had been a misunderstanding during your conversation with Revolut because it was under the impression that you had been tricked into authorising the transactions. But that didn't explain why the transaction had gone through after you had rejected it. It might shock readers to learn that companies can proceed with a payment even if a customer has declined it, so it's possible that Uber Eats or its payment company had pushed it through. Uber Eats told me: 'Uber takes reports of fraud very seriously and our specialist teams promptly investigate any concerns, as we did in this case.' It has now reimbursed you and banned the fraudulent account. Revolut said: 'We are sorry to hear about this case, or any instance where our customers are targeted by ruthless and highly sophisticated criminals. If you notice any unrecognised activity on your account, we advise you to freeze your cards immediately.' Sadly this didn't explain how fraudsters got your card details, or restore your faith in Revolut, and so you have decided to close your account. • £1,476,988 — the amount Your Money Matters has saved readers so far this year If you have a money problem you would like Katherine Denham to investigate email yourmoneymatters@ Please include a phone number
Times
27 minutes ago
- Times
The inheritance tax headache coming for the middle class
Tens of thousands of families will be pulled into paying inheritance tax as the government goes ahead with its raid on pensions, despite fierce opposition from the industry. From April 2027 pension pots will be included in the value of your estate for inheritance tax purposes. The change was first announced in the budget in October, leading to warnings from hundreds of pension companies, financial advisers and tax firms that it would create an administrative nightmare for grieving families. 'It's a horrible outcome. Not only are lots of grieving families going to pay far more tax, but alongside that they are going to have complex paperwork to deal with,' said Andrew Tully from the investment firm Nucleus. 'And it's not just something that will affect the super-wealthy. Frozen thresholds and rising asset prices mean that inheritance tax is already more of a burden on the middle class, and this will only be exacerbated by charging inheritance tax on pensions, too.' Anything left to a spouse or civil partner, including pensions from 2027, is exempt from inheritance tax and couples can pass on any unused allowances to each other, giving them a total of £1 million to pass on inheritance tax-free. Under the new rules, 'personal representatives' will be responsible for dealing with HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and paying any inheritance tax due on pensions. This will be whoever is named as the executor in the will, usually a family member or a solicitor. This will involve finding all the deceased's pension pots, contacting each firm and getting accurate valuations of those pots at the date of death. The representative must then calculate any tax liability and co-ordinate with the pension beneficiary to decide how the tax will be paid — from the estate, the pension itself, or through the pension firm. All this needs to be done within six months of the person's death, which is when the tax is due. Campaigners have pressed the government to extend the deadline to 12 or 24 months in cases involving pensions because of the added complexity. Rachel Vahey from the investment firm AJ Bell said that the process could end up being so complicated and confusing that families, fearful of ending up on the wrong side of HMRC, would pay for help. Families may also face delays in getting their money because pension firms could withhold up to 40 per cent of a pension's value until they are certain that no tax is owed. • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts At the moment most people inheriting a pension, including spouses or civil partners, pay income tax on the money, unless the pension holder died before they were 75. The government has confirmed that this will continue even after inheritance tax is applied, meaning that some families face a double tax hit that could leave them paying an effective tax rate of up to 90 per cent on inherited pension money. For example, a higher-rate taxpayer inheriting a pension worth £100,000 from a £600,000 estate would lose £40,000 to inheritance tax, leaving £60,000. If they were taxed at their income tax rate of 40 per cent on that sum, a further £24,000 would go to HMRC, leaving just £36,000 — an effective tax rate of 64 per cent. For a top-rate taxpayer, the figure rises to 67 per cent. If the pension assets push an estate above £2 million (at which point the extra £175,000 you get if you leave your main home to a direct descendant is gradually reduced), the total tax burden on an inherited pension could climb to 90 per cent because of the lost allowance and high income tax rates. • 'My reward for being a good saver? A £1,000 tax bill' About 5 per cent of estates paid inheritance tax last year and the Office for Budget Responsibility, the official forecaster, expects this to double to 10 per cent by 2030 because of the changes to pensions. The amount paid in inheritance tax is expected to boom too, from £8.4 billion by the end of this tax year to £14.3 billion by the turn of the decade. Pension assets alone are expected to generate £1.5 billion a year. But the consultancy LCP believes that this figure significantly underestimates the impact of the tax raid. Its forecast suggests that pension-related inheritance tax could raise as much as £3 billion a year. Its analysis factors in the surge in savers transferring from the old final-salary (defined benefit) pensions to defined contribution pensions (which offer more flexibility but where the amount you get in retirement is not guaranteed). Since 2015 more than 100,000 have moved pots into pensions that will now be subject to tax. Financial advisers are already seeing a surge in demand for estate-planning tools, such as insurance policies and trusts, as families look to protect their heirs and manage tax liabilities. One option is life insurance that will cover the inheritance tax you expect your beneficiaries to pay, and to place it in a trust. This keeps the insurance payout outside your estate. 'Clients are looking at whole-of-life insurance, written into a trust,' said Lucie Spencer from the wealth manager Evelyn Partners. 'It means the funds are there to pay the IHT bill and your family does not need to borrow money or sell assets to get probate.' St James's Place (SJP), a wealth manager, is expecting a rise in the use of what is known as gift inter vivos insurance — policies that have to be written into a trust, and which will cover any inheritance tax due on gifts made before you die. If you make a gift and then live another seven years, no inheritance tax is due on the value of that gift, but if you die before, the beneficiary could face a bill. The value of a gift inter vivos policy tapers down in the same way that the tax due on a gift decreases over the seven years after it is given. Tony Mudd from SJP said the number of the firm's financial advisers looking into such products had doubled since last year. • On £100k and struggling: why it's hard being a Henry Bryony Cove from the London law firm Farrer & Co said: 'All these things are part of the patchwork of estate planning, and I imagine we will see an increase in people using these. 'It's crucial to get some guidance, either professional or from Citizens' Advice, as it's quite a complicated system. Make sure you've spoken to someone who knows what they are doing.' The Treasury said: 'We continue to incentivise pension saving for its intended purpose — of funding retirement instead of being openly used as a vehicle to transfer wealth. More than 90 per cent of estates each year will continue to pay no inheritance tax after these and other changes.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Councils set for windfall under new recycling scheme
English councils are poised to receive a substantial £1.1 billion in recycling funding, sourced directly from fees levied on companies for the packaging they produce. This marks a significant shift from the current system, where local authorities have historically shouldered the cost of disposing of items like milk bottles and cereal boxes, funded by taxpayers. The new Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme, set to come into force this year, will mandate businesses to contribute financially towards the recycling of their packaging. Companies will begin paying these fees from November, with charges varying based on how difficult the material is to recycle. It is anticipated that this initiative will incentivise businesses to reduce their packaging use, transition to more easily recyclable materials, and invest in circular economy innovations. Ultimately, the goal is to significantly cut the volume of waste sent to landfills or incinerators. The Environment Department (Defra) expects to collect £1.4 billion in EPR fees over the coming months, guaranteeing £1.1 billion of this sum for English councils in the 2025/26 financial year, regardless of the final collection total. The further £300,000 is expected go to the UK's devolved authorities to allocate to councils. Councils will be able to choose how to spend the funding, such as offering local residents more streamlined collections, building new infrastructures or upgrading facilities. Environment Secretary Steve Reed said all councils must use the funding to deliver improved packaging waste collection services for their communities. The scheme's administrator PackUK has been given powers to reduce future funding allocations if evidence shows a council has funnelled it towards other purposes. More widely, the Government hopes the scheme will help to unlock regional growth, create new green jobs and boost household recycling rates which have seen little improvement over recent years. It pointed to projects such as waste management firm Veolia's facility in Southwark which handles and processes materials collected from homes and sends them to be turned into new products. Environment minister Mary Creagh said: 'This Government is cleaning up Britain and ending the throwaway society. She added that the money 'will revolutionise how we deal with our waste and ensure more of today's rubbish is recycled into tomorrow's packaging'. Local government minister Jim McMahon said: 'Clean and tidy streets are something everyone wants to see, and these commonsense reforms will help councils achieve that. 'Whether it's channelling more money into recycling or reforming the outdated funding system, we are fixing the foundations of local government so that it can focus on what matters most to people across the country.' Jacob Hayler, executive director of the Environmental Services Association, said: 'Our members stand ready to invest billions, alongside local authority partners, in the next generation of recycling services, infrastructure and jobs, which will provide a rapid boost to England's stalled recycling rates. 'The new producer responsibility regime for packaging, alongside other measures to simplify recycling services, will unlock this investment and support our ambition to achieve a circular economy in the United Kingdom over the next decade.' Jim Bligh, the Food and Drink Federation's director of corporate affairs and packaging, said: 'This announcement is welcome news for both industry and consumers, coming just before producers receive their first invoices for EPR. 'It marks a vital step towards delivering the improvements in the UK's recycling system that we all want and need.' Adam Hug, environment spokesperson for the Local Government Association, said: 'It's positive to see the costs of managing packaging waste shift to the industry creating this waste. 'Councils are proud to run some of the best recycling services in the world, with high levels of public satisfaction despite significant financial pressures. 'This success is built on council's local knowledge and strong links with communities, and we hope the new scheme will support that work and help reduce the amount of packaging ending up in household bins.' The EPR scheme comes as part of wider Government efforts to boost the circular economy, which also include the delayed deposit return scheme that provides a financial incentive to customers to return empty drinks containers to collection points. The Circular Economy Taskforce is also working with sectors to create a series of roadmaps to improve the approach to using materials.
