I have been assured by my bank that they are correct to state that
their account numbers are seven digits. Despite this they tell me that
if anybody wants to pay me money they have to quote a leading "0"!
Where is the logic in that?

"PeterSaxton" wrote
>I have been assured by my bank that they are correct to state that
> their account numbers are seven digits. Despite this they tell me that
> if anybody wants to pay me money they have to quote a leading "0"!
> Where is the logic in that?

What do you think might be wrong with that?
It sounds perfectly logical...

On 21 Aug, 16:23, "Tim"  wrote:
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>
> >I have been assured by my bank that they are correct to state that
> > their account numbers are seven digits. Despite this they tell me that
> > if anybody wants to pay me money they have to quote a leading "0"!
> > Where is the logic in that?
>
> What do you think might be wrong with that?
> It sounds perfectly logical...

In the land of the sensible I would expect that you would quote the
account number to make a payment into it.

PeterSaxton wrote:

> On 21 Aug, 16:23, "Tim"  wrote:
>> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>>
>> >I have been assured by my bank that they are correct to state that
>> > their account numbers are seven digits. Despite this they tell me that
>> > if anybody wants to pay me money they have to quote a leading "0"!
>> > Where is the logic in that?
>>
>> What do you think might be wrong with that?
>> It sounds perfectly logical...
> 
> In the land of the sensible I would expect that you would quote the
> account number to make a payment into it.

If your bank's account numbers are seven digits long, all this means
is that they are in the range 1000000 to 9999999.  The national
interbank clearing system provides for 6 digit bank numbers and
8 digit account numbers, and these are not actually held as numbers
but as strings of characters.  Some automated processing systems are
so inflexible that they require all 8 digit positions to be used,
and so it will be necessary to ensure that your 7 digits occupy the
correct 7 of the 8 available positions.  One way to force this to
happen, when using such an inflexible system, is to enter a leading
zero.

I think there has been a misunderstanding, and that they have (or
should have) told you that if anybody wants to pay you money they
*MAY* have to quote a leading "0", depending on exactly where they
are doing the quoting.

Two possible reasons for this sorry state of affairs could be
that the software for these processing systems is still written
in Cobol, and that some of the programmers are football fans.

On 21 Aug, 17:52, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 21 Aug, 16:23, "Tim"  wrote:
> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>
> >> >I have been assured by my bank that they are correct to state that
> >> > their account numbers are seven digits. Despite this they tell me that
> >> > if anybody wants to pay me money they have to quote a leading "0"!
> >> > Where is the logic in that?
>
> >> What do you think might be wrong with that?
> >> It sounds perfectly logical...
>
> > In the land of the sensible I would expect that you would quote the
> > account number to make a payment into it.
>
> If your bank's account numbers are seven digits long, all this means
> is that they are in the range 1000000 to 9999999.  The national
> interbank clearing system provides for 6 digit bank numbers and
> 8 digit account numbers, and these are not actually held as numbers
> but as strings of characters.  Some automated processing systems are
> so inflexible that they require all 8 digit positions to be used,
> and so it will be necessary to ensure that your 7 digits occupy the
> correct 7 of the 8 available positions.  One way to force this to
> happen, when using such an inflexible system, is to enter a leading
> zero.
>
> I think there has been a misunderstanding, and that they have (or
> should have) told you that if anybody wants to pay you money they
> *MAY* have to quote a leading "0", depending on exactly where they
> are doing the quoting.
>
> Two possible reasons for this sorry state of affairs could be
> that the software for these processing systems is still written
> in Cobol, and that some of the programmers are football fans.

Happens all the time. BACS transfers will be rejected unless somebody
inserts the leading zeros.

On 21 Aug, 17:52, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 21 Aug, 16:23, "Tim"  wrote:
> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>
> >> >I have been assured by my bank that they are correct to state that
> >> > their account numbers are seven digits. Despite this they tell me that
> >> > if anybody wants to pay me money they have to quote a leading "0"!
> >> > Where is the logic in that?
>
> >> What do you think might be wrong with that?
> >> It sounds perfectly logical...
>
> > In the land of the sensible I would expect that you would quote the
> > account number to make a payment into it.
>
> If your bank's account numbers are seven digits long, all this means
> is that they are in the range 1000000 to 9999999.  The national
> interbank clearing system provides for 6 digit bank numbers and
> 8 digit account numbers, and these are not actually held as numbers
> but as strings of characters.  Some automated processing systems are
> so inflexible that they require all 8 digit positions to be used,
> and so it will be necessary to ensure that your 7 digits occupy the
> correct 7 of the 8 available positions.  One way to force this to
> happen, when using such an inflexible system, is to enter a leading
> zero.
>
Wouldn't it be better if they made it a priority that all UK banks had
eight digit account numbers?

> I think there has been a misunderstanding, and that they have (or
> should have) told you that if anybody wants to pay you money they
> *MAY* have to quote a leading "0", depending on exactly where they
> are doing the quoting.
>
Sadly, nowadays people who answer the phones at banks are the people
who know very little about banking operations.

> Two possible reasons for this sorry state of affairs could be
> that the software for these processing systems is still written
> in Cobol, and that some of the programmers are football fans.

What percentage are football fans? I'll factor in an adjustment to
your answer to achieve a more realistic figure!

PeterSaxton wrote:

> On 21 Aug, 17:52, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>
>> If your bank's account numbers are seven digits long, all this means
>> is that they are in the range 1000000 to 9999999.  The national
>> interbank clearing system provides for 6 digit bank numbers and
>> 8 digit account numbers, and these are not actually held as numbers
>> but as strings of characters.  Some automated processing systems are
>> so inflexible that they require all 8 digit positions to be used,
>> and so it will be necessary to ensure that your 7 digits occupy the
>> correct 7 of the 8 available positions.  One way to force this to
>> happen, when using such an inflexible system, is to enter a leading
>> zero.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better if they made it a priority that all UK banks had
> eight digit account numbers?

All UK banks already have 8 digit numbers.
When someone says their accounts have 6 digit numbers, it just means
that the first 2 digits of all their 8 digit numbers are zero.

>> I think there has been a misunderstanding, and that they have (or
>> should have) told you that if anybody wants to pay you money they
>> *MAY* have to quote a leading "0", depending on exactly where they
>> are doing the quoting.
> 
> Sadly, nowadays people who answer the phones at banks are the people
> who know very little about banking operations.

More fool you, then, for trying to talk to your bank on the phone.

>> Two possible reasons for this sorry state of affairs could be
>> that the software for these processing systems is still written
>> in Cobol, and that some of the programmers are football fans.
> 
> What percentage are football fans? I'll factor in an adjustment to
> your answer to achieve a more realistic figure!

I don't know, it only takes one to muck it up.

How many football fans does it take to change a lightbulb?

"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message 
news:xThrk.46178$E41.30320@text.news.virginmedia.com...

>
> How many football fans does it take to change a lightbulb?
>

None.

(Having never seen the light, they won't notice it's blown)


-- 
Martin

On 21 Aug, 18:48, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 21 Aug, 17:52, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> >> If your bank's account numbers are seven digits long, all this means
> >> is that they are in the range 1000000 to 9999999.  The national
> >> interbank clearing system provides for 6 digit bank numbers and
> >> 8 digit account numbers, and these are not actually held as numbers
> >> but as strings of characters.  Some automated processing systems are
> >> so inflexible that they require all 8 digit positions to be used,
> >> and so it will be necessary to ensure that your 7 digits occupy the
> >> correct 7 of the 8 available positions.  One way to force this to
> >> happen, when using such an inflexible system, is to enter a leading
> >> zero.
>
> > Wouldn't it be better if they made it a priority that all UK banks had
> > eight digit account numbers?
>
> All UK banks already have 8 digit numbers.
> When someone says their accounts have 6 digit numbers, it just means
> that the first 2 digits of all their 8 digit numbers are zero.
>
My bank insists that their business bank accounts only have seven
digits.

> >> I think there has been a misunderstanding, and that they have (or
> >> should have) told you that if anybody wants to pay you money they
> >> *MAY* have to quote a leading "0", depending on exactly where they
> >> are doing the quoting.
>
> > Sadly, nowadays people who answer the phones at banks are the people
> > who know very little about banking operations.
>
> More fool you, then, for trying to talk to your bank on the phone.

I asked to speak to somebody who had some knowledge.
>
> >> Two possible reasons for this sorry state of affairs could be
> >> that the software for these processing systems is still written
> >> in Cobol, and that some of the programmers are football fans.
>
> > What percentage are football fans? I'll factor in an adjustment to
> > your answer to achieve a more realistic figure!
>
> I don't know, it only takes one to muck it up.
>
> How many football fans does it take to change a lightbulb?-

Ronald: You're not supposed to answer that it's a joke.

Tim: There's no such thing as a lightbulb.

Alan: Do you have one in pink?

> "Ronald Raygun" wrote:
>> How many football fans does it take to change a lightbulb?-
>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
> Ronald: You're not supposed to answer that it's a joke.
>
> Tim: There's no such thing as a lightbulb.
>
> Alan: Do you have one in pink?

Peter: Four hundred and three....  Ooops, I used the
        wrong method -- it's well over two hundred, though.

PeterSaxton wrote:

> On 21 Aug, 18:48, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> PeterSaxton wrote:
>> > On 21 Aug, 17:52, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>
>> >> If your bank's account numbers are seven digits long, all this means
>> >> is that they are in the range 1000000 to 9999999.  The national
>> >> interbank clearing system provides for 6 digit bank numbers and
>> >> 8 digit account numbers, and these are not actually held as numbers
>> >> but as strings of characters.  Some automated processing systems are
>> >> so inflexible that they require all 8 digit positions to be used,
>> >> and so it will be necessary to ensure that your 7 digits occupy the
>> >> correct 7 of the 8 available positions.  One way to force this to
>> >> happen, when using such an inflexible system, is to enter a leading
>> >> zero.
>>
>> > Wouldn't it be better if they made it a priority that all UK banks had
>> > eight digit account numbers?
>>
>> All UK banks already have 8 digit numbers.
>> When someone says their accounts have 6 digit numbers, it just means
>> that the first 2 digits of all their 8 digit numbers are zero.
> 
> My bank insists that their business bank accounts only have seven
> digits.

I'm intrigued.  Why?
(I don't mean why do they have 7 digits, I mean why do they insist).
And what difference does it make to you, i.e. why did you bring it up?
In what context(s) does the distinction arise?

>> >> I think there has been a misunderstanding, and that they have (or
>> >> should have) told you that if anybody wants to pay you money they
>> >> *MAY* have to quote a leading "0", depending on exactly where they
>> >> are doing the quoting.
>>
>> > Sadly, nowadays people who answer the phones at banks are the people
>> > who know very little about banking operations.
>>
>> More fool you, then, for trying to talk to your bank on the phone.
> 
> I asked to speak to somebody who had some knowledge.

Just to resolve an issue about account number lengths?

If banks actually had some people with knowledge, they'd be too valuable
a resource to be wasting their time talking to members of the public
(even if clients) on the phone at all, never mind about some trivial
irrelevance.

>> >> Two possible reasons for this sorry state of affairs could be
>> >> that the software for these processing systems is still written
>> >> in Cobol, and that some of the programmers are football fans.
>>
>> > What percentage are football fans? I'll factor in an adjustment to
>> > your answer to achieve a more realistic figure!
>>
>> I don't know, it only takes one to muck it up.
>>
>> How many football fans does it take to change a lightbulb?-
> 
> Ronald: You're not supposed to answer that it's a joke.

Is there some punctuation missing there?  To what sort of question
can you answer that it's a joke?

The answer is:  One to actually do it, plus a crowd of supporters
to cheer him on, plus another crowd of supporters for the other side
to boo, whereupon a fight ensues, missiles are thrown, one of which
hits the lamp, breaking the newly changed light bulb, and a substitute
has to be brought on.

On 21 Aug, 22:29, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 21 Aug, 18:48, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >> PeterSaxton wrote:
> >> > On 21 Aug, 17:52, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> >> >> If your bank's account numbers are seven digits long, all this means
> >> >> is that they are in the range 1000000 to 9999999.  The national
> >> >> interbank clearing system provides for 6 digit bank numbers and
> >> >> 8 digit account numbers, and these are not actually held as numbers
> >> >> but as strings of characters.  Some automated processing systems are
> >> >> so inflexible that they require all 8 digit positions to be used,
> >> >> and so it will be necessary to ensure that your 7 digits occupy the
> >> >> correct 7 of the 8 available positions.  One way to force this to
> >> >> happen, when using such an inflexible system, is to enter a leading
> >> >> zero.
>
> >> > Wouldn't it be better if they made it a priority that all UK banks had
> >> > eight digit account numbers?
>
> >> All UK banks already have 8 digit numbers.
> >> When someone says their accounts have 6 digit numbers, it just means
> >> that the first 2 digits of all their 8 digit numbers are zero.
>
> > My bank insists that their business bank accounts only have seven
> > digits.
>
> I'm intrigued.  Why?
> (I don't mean why do they have 7 digits, I mean why do they insist).

Presumably because they think that is the truth. I asked if they had
eight digits and they said the account number was seven digits.

> And what difference does it make to you, i.e. why did you bring it up?
> In what context(s) does the distinction arise?
>
Because I'd like people to be able to pay money into my bank accounts.
Lloyds TSB say their business bank accounts have seven digits although
many people have to enter eight digits to make a payment online.

> >> >> I think there has been a misunderstanding, and that they have (or
> >> >> should have) told you that if anybody wants to pay you money they
> >> >> *MAY* have to quote a leading "0", depending on exactly where they
> >> >> are doing the quoting.
>
> >> > Sadly, nowadays people who answer the phones at banks are the people
> >> > who know very little about banking operations.
>
> >> More fool you, then, for trying to talk to your bank on the phone.
>
> > I asked to speak to somebody who had some knowledge.
>
> Just to resolve an issue about account number lengths?
>
Yes

> If banks actually had some people with knowledge, they'd be too valuable
> a resource to be wasting their time talking to members of the public
> (even if clients) on the phone at all, never mind about some trivial
> irrelevance.
>
Given that you can get an O-level in a subject without studying the
subject it's a sad state of affairs.

> >> >> Two possible reasons for this sorry state of affairs could be
> >> >> that the software for these processing systems is still written
> >> >> in Cobol, and that some of the programmers are football fans.
>
> >> > What percentage are football fans? I'll factor in an adjustment to
> >> > your answer to achieve a more realistic figure!
>
> >> I don't know, it only takes one to muck it up.
>
> >> How many football fans does it take to change a lightbulb?-
>
> > Ronald: You're not supposed to answer that it's a joke.
>
> Is there some punctuation missing there?  To what sort of question
> can you answer that it's a joke?

Here's an example: "Is Tim not a liar or is it a joke?"
>
> The answer is:  One to actually do it, plus a crowd of supporters
> to cheer him on, plus another crowd of supporters for the other side
> to boo, whereupon a fight ensues, missiles are thrown, one of which
> hits the lamp, breaking the newly changed light bulb, and a substitute
> has to be brought on.-

Sounds a lot of fun!

Maybe it will be like that at Blackburn on saturday.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:20:33 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton
 wrote:

>Alan: Do you have one in pink?

Peter: your bigotry is showing again.

--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris

 ()'.'.'()
 ( (T) )
 ( ) . ( )
 (")_(")

PeterSaxton wrote:

> On 21 Aug, 22:29, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> PeterSaxton wrote:
>> > On 21 Aug, 18:48, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> >> PeterSaxton wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> > Wouldn't it be better if they made it a priority that all UK banks
>> >> > had eight digit account numbers?
>> >> 
>> >> All UK banks already have 8 digit numbers.
>> >> When someone says their accounts have 6 digit numbers, it just means
>> >> that the first 2 digits of all their 8 digit numbers are zero.
>> > 
>> > My bank insists that their business bank accounts only have seven
>> > digits.
>>
>> I'm intrigued.  Why?
>> (I don't mean why do they have 7 digits, I mean why do they insist).
> 
> Presumably because they think that is the truth. I asked if they had
> eight digits and they said the account number was seven digits.

It being true is hardly reason enough to insist.  The sky is blue (well,
except when it isn't, e.g. when it's night or cloudy), but nobody in
their right mind would bother insisting that it is so.

Their account numbers, if specified as 8 digits, will all begin with a
zero, and may therefore be thought of as having only 7 digits (of which
the first is presumably never zero).  They choose to think of them in
that way.  So what?

>> And what difference does it make to you, i.e. why did you bring it up?
>> In what context(s) does the distinction arise?
> 
> Because I'd like people to be able to pay money into my bank accounts.
> Lloyds TSB say their business bank accounts have seven digits although
> many people have to enter eight digits to make a payment online.

So they've answered your question.  The number of digits your clients
have to enter when making an online payment is a function of the
software systems provided by *their* bank, not yours (unless they happen
to be the same bank).  LTSB are not in a position to give definitive
advice about how to use other banks' systems.  Some systems require you
to enter 8 digits, in which case your clients would have to put a zero
followed by your 7 digits.  Some systems may be happy to accept 7 digits
and will add a zero themselves, preferably at the front, to convert them
to interbank format.

So, although some systems may work with 7, I doubt whether there are any
systmes which will not work with 8 when the first is zero.  So the best
general advice your bank can give you is to tell your clients to use
8 digits starting witha  zero, and they have done.

What's your problem?  I don't understand why you're being so [anagram of
Mr Ferris's first name] about it.

> Given that you can get an O-level in a subject without studying the
> subject it's a sad state of affairs.
> 
>> > Ronald: You're not supposed to answer that it's a joke.
>>
>> Is there some punctuation missing there?  To what sort of question
>> can you answer that it's a joke?
> 
> Here's an example: "Is Tim not a liar or is it a joke?"

Well done!  Give that man a complimentary O-level in English.
Pity that sort of question wasn't asked here, though, innit?

>> The answer is:  One to actually do it, plus a crowd of supporters
>> to cheer him on, plus another crowd of supporters for the other side
>> to boo, whereupon a fight ensues, missiles are thrown, one of which
>> hits the lamp, breaking the newly changed light bulb, and a substitute
>> has to be brought on.-
> 
> Sounds a lot of fun!

On the contrary, it's interminably boring, because the story just keeps
on repeating.  The substitute lightbulb gets broken too, and the next,
and so on until you run out of lightbulbs.  The moral is, if you need a
lightbulb changing, don't get football fans in.

> Maybe it will be like that at Blackburn on saturday.

I expect so.  Same old story, a bunch of testosterone-charged young men
in shorts running around a muddy field in the pouring rain after a
silly little ball.

On 22 Aug, 09:40, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 21 Aug, 22:29, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >> PeterSaxton wrote:
> >> > On 21 Aug, 18:48, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >> >> PeterSaxton wrote:
>
> >> >> > Wouldn't it be better if they made it a priority that all UK banks
> >> >> > had eight digit account numbers?
>
> >> >> All UK banks already have 8 digit numbers.
> >> >> When someone says their accounts have 6 digit numbers, it just means
> >> >> that the first 2 digits of all their 8 digit numbers are zero.
>
> >> > My bank insists that their business bank accounts only have seven
> >> > digits.
>
> >> I'm intrigued.  Why?
> >> (I don't mean why do they have 7 digits, I mean why do they insist).
>
> > Presumably because they think that is the truth. I asked if they had
> > eight digits and they said the account number was seven digits.
>
> It being true is hardly reason enough to insist.  The sky is blue (well> except when it isn't, e.g. when it's night or cloudy), but nobody in
> their right mind would bother insisting that it is so.
>
> Their account numbers, if specified as 8 digits, will all begin with a
> zero, and may therefore be thought of as having only 7 digits (of which
> the first is presumably never zero).  They choose to think of them in
> that way.  So what?
>
Bank account numbers shouldn't be something that people "choose to
think of them in that way". It is a recipe for confusion. If the
banking system needs eight digits then the bank accounts should have
eight digits.

> >> And what difference does it make to you, i.e. why did you bring it up?
> >> In what context(s) does the distinction arise?
>
> > Because I'd like people to be able to pay money into my bank accounts.
> > Lloyds TSB say their business bank accounts have seven digits although
> > many people have to enter eight digits to make a payment online.
>
> So they've answered your question.  The number of digits your clients
> have to enter when making an online payment is a function of the
> software systems provided by *their* bank, not yours (unless they happen
> to be the same bank).  LTSB are not in a position to give definitive
> advice about how to use other banks' systems.  Some systems require you
> to enter 8 digits, in which case your clients would have to put a zero
> followed by your 7 digits.  Some systems may be happy to accept 7 digits
> and will add a zero themselves, preferably at the front, to convert them
> to interbank format.
>
> So, although some systems may work with 7, I doubt whether there are any
> systmes which will not work with 8 when the first is zero.  So the best
> general advice your bank can give you is to tell your clients to use
> 8 digits starting witha  zero, and they have done.
>
> What's your problem?  I don't understand why you're being so [anagram of
> Mr Ferris's first name] about it.
>
You don't seem to understand the need for consistency when systems
interact. I suppose in your world you'd think it isn't necessary to
have phones working to a common system because something would get
sorted out if people really wanted to communicate.

> > Given that you can get an O-level in a subject without studying the
> > subject it's a sad state of affairs.
>
> >> > Ronald: You're not supposed to answer that it's a joke.
>
> >> Is there some punctuation missing there?  To what sort of question
> >> can you answer that it's a joke?
>
> > Here's an example: "Is Tim not a liar or is it a joke?"
>
> Well done!  Give that man a complimentary O-level in English.
> Pity that sort of question wasn't asked here, though, innit?
>
It was. You just asked it.

> >> The answer is:  One to actually do it, plus a crowd of supporters
> >> to cheer him on, plus another crowd of supporters for the other side
> >> to boo, whereupon a fight ensues, missiles are thrown, one of which
> >> hits the lamp, breaking the newly changed light bulb, and a substitute
> >> has to be brought on.-
>
> > Sounds a lot of fun!
>
> On the contrary, it's interminably boring, because the story just keeps
> on repeating.  The substitute lightbulb gets broken too, and the next,
> and so on until you run out of lightbulbs.  The moral is, if you need a
> lightbulb changing, don't get football fans in.
>
> > Maybe it will be like that at Blackburn on saturday.
>
> I expect so.  Same old story, a bunch of testosterone-charged young men
> in shorts running around a muddy field in the pouring rain after a
> silly little ball.-

If you don't like something I'm quite happy for you to not like it.

PeterSaxton wrote:

> On 22 Aug, 09:40, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> PeterSaxton wrote:
>> > On 21 Aug, 22:29, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> >> PeterSaxton wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> > My bank insists that their business bank accounts only have seven
>> >> > digits.
>> >> 
>> >> I'm intrigued.  Why?
>> >> (I don't mean why do they have 7 digits, I mean why do they insist).
>>
>> > Presumably because they think that is the truth. I asked if they had
>> > eight digits and they said the account number was seven digits.
>>
>> Their account numbers, if specified as 8 digits, will all begin with a
>> zero, and may therefore be thought of as having only 7 digits (of which
>> the first is presumably never zero).  They choose to think of them in
>> that way.  So what?
> 
> Bank account numbers shouldn't be something that people "choose to
> think of them in that way". It is a recipe for confusion. If the
> banking system needs eight digits then the bank accounts should have
> eight digits.

I put it to you that their accounts *do* have 8 digits, and that their
assertion that they have 7 is just the view of one of their numpties,
based on the fact that the first digit is always zero.

Do these business accounts issue you with cheque books?  The cheques will
have the account number printed along the bottom.  I expect they will have
8 digits.  If so, I suggest you go in and show the evidence to the branch
manager and complain that whichever member of staff advised you on the
phone is a liar.

>> So, although some systems may work with 7, I doubt whether there are any
>> systmes which will not work with 8 when the first is zero.  So the best
>> general advice your bank can give you is to tell your clients to use
>> 8 digits starting witha  zero, and they have done.
>>
>> What's your problem?  I don't understand why you're being so [anagram of
>> Mr Ferris's first name] about it.
> 
> You don't seem to understand the need for consistency when systems
> interact.

Of course I do, and there presumably *is* consistency, i.e. the systems
interact between themselves on the basis of 8 digit account numbers.

When I said "some systems may work with 7", I did not mean that such
systems use 7 digits internally throughout.  I meant (do I really have
to explain this?) that at the stage where a person (your client) interacts
with their online banking system, this system may be perfectly happy
for the person to enter as few digits as they like, and will automatically
supply as many leading zeroes as necessary.

Whether such a feature is desirable or not is debatable.  After all, if
someone enters fewer than 8 digits, it might be by mistake.  They may have
omitted one or more digits other than leading zeroes.

> I suppose in your world you'd think it isn't necessary to
> have phones working to a common system because something would get
> sorted out if people really wanted to communicate.

Phones *don't* work to a common system, at least not at the user interface.
On some phones I can just dial a local number, on others I have to supply
the local area code first.

>> > Given that you can get an O-level in a subject without studying the
>> > subject it's a sad state of affairs.
>>
>> >> > Ronald: You're not supposed to answer that it's a joke.
>>
>> >> Is there some punctuation missing there?  To what sort of question
>> >> can you answer that it's a joke?
>>
>> > Here's an example: "Is Tim not a liar or is it a joke?"
>>
>> Well done!  Give that man a complimentary O-level in English.
>> Pity that sort of question wasn't asked here, though, innit?
> 
> It was. You just asked it.

No, I asked "How many football supporters does it take to change a
lightbulb?"  That was a joke question, but not the sort of question
to which "it's a joke" is a possible answer.

My reference to punctuation came from supposing you might have
intended to write "You're not supposed to answer that, it's a joke."

>> > Maybe it will be like that at Blackburn on saturday.
>>
>> I expect so.  Same old story, a bunch of testosterone-charged young men
>> in shorts running around a muddy field in the pouring rain after a
>> silly little ball.-
> 
> If you don't like something I'm quite happy for you to not like it.

That's OK, I'm also happy for you to like it.

On 22 Aug, 14:04, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 22 Aug, 09:40, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >> PeterSaxton wrote:
> >> > On 21 Aug, 22:29, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >> >> PeterSaxton wrote:
>
> >> >> > My bank insists that their business bank accounts only have seven
> >> >> > digits.
>
> >> >> I'm intrigued.  Why?
> >> >> (I don't mean why do they have 7 digits, I mean why do they insist)> >> > Presumably because they think that is the truth. I asked if they had
> >> > eight digits and they said the account number was seven digits.
>
> >> Their account numbers, if specified as 8 digits, will all begin with a
> >> zero, and may therefore be thought of as having only 7 digits (of which
> >> the first is presumably never zero).  They choose to think of them in
> >> that way.  So what?
>
> > Bank account numbers shouldn't be something that people "choose to
> > think of them in that way". It is a recipe for confusion. If the
> > banking system needs eight digits then the bank accounts should have
> > eight digits.
>
> I put it to you that their accounts *do* have 8 digits, and that their
> assertion that they have 7 is just the view of one of their numpties,
> based on the fact that the first digit is always zero.
>
> Do these business accounts issue you with cheque books?  The cheques will
> have the account number printed along the bottom.  I expect they will have
> 8 digits.  If so, I suggest you go in and show the evidence to the branch
> manager and complain that whichever member of staff advised you on the
> phone is a liar.
>
Wow, what brilliant advice! As John Cleese would say: "Ronald's
specialised subject - the bleeding obvious."

I have cheque books, bank statements and paying-in books. They all
have seven digit account numbers. I did notice that when I first
received them years ago.

Your expectations are worrying.

> >> So, although some systems may work with 7, I doubt whether there are any
> >> systmes which will not work with 8 when the first is zero.  So the best
> >> general advice your bank can give you is to tell your clients to use
> >> 8 digits starting witha  zero, and they have done.
>
> >> What's your problem?  I don't understand why you're being so [anagram of
> >> Mr Ferris's first name] about it.
>
> > You don't seem to understand the need for consistency when systems
> > interact.
>
> Of course I do, and there presumably *is* consistency, i.e. the systems
> interact between themselves on the basis of 8 digit account numbers.
>
This is the reason for this thread. There isn't your presumed
consistency.

> When I said "some systems may work with 7", I did not mean that such
> systems use 7 digits internally throughout.  I meant (do I really have
> to explain this?) that at the stage where a person (your client) interacts
> with their online banking system, this system may be perfectly happy
> for the person to enter as few digits as they like, and will automatically
> supply as many leading zeroes as necessary.
>
You meant wrong then. My clients complain that their system won't
accept them entering my bank's seven digit account number. I repeat:
This is the reason for this thread.

> Whether such a feature is desirable or not is debatable.  After all, if
> someone enters fewer than 8 digits, it might be by mistake.  They may have
> omitted one or more digits other than leading zeroes.
>
> > I suppose in your world you'd think it isn't necessary to
> > have phones working to a common system because something would get
> > sorted out if people really wanted to communicate.
>
> Phones *don't* work to a common system, at least not at the user interface.
> On some phones I can just dial a local number, on others I have to supply
> the local area code first.
>
That's what is called a common system. It may be more complicated than
you want but people know when to use it. It's not the same as
saying:"try the account number and if that doesn't work add a leading
zero".

> >> > Given that you can get an O-level in a subject without studying the
> >> > subject it's a sad state of affairs.
>
> >> >> > Ronald: You're not supposed to answer that it's a joke.
>
> >> >> Is there some punctuation missing there?  To what sort of question
> >> >> can you answer that it's a joke?
>
> >> > Here's an example: "Is Tim not a liar or is it a joke?"
>
> >> Well done!  Give that man a complimentary O-level in English.
> >> Pity that sort of question wasn't asked here, though, innit?
>
> > It was. You just asked it.
>
> No, I asked "How many football supporters does it take to change a
> lightbulb?"  That was a joke question, but not the sort of question
> to which "it's a joke" is a possible answer.
>
You said: "To what sort of question can you answer that it's a joke?"

> My reference to punctuation came from supposing you might have
> intended to write "You're not supposed to answer that, it's a joke."
>
I know.

> >> > Maybe it will be like that at Blackburn on saturday.
>
> >> I expect so.  Same old story, a bunch of testosterone-charged young men
> >> in shorts running around a muddy field in the pouring rain after a
> >> silly little ball.-
>
> > If you don't like something I'm quite happy for you to not like it.
>
> That's OK, I'm also happy for you to like it

So on Saturday I'll be happy liking it and you'll be happy for me to
like it.

PeterSaxton wrote:

> On 22 Aug, 14:04, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> PeterSaxton wrote:
>> > On 22 Aug, 09:40, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> >> Their account numbers, if specified as 8 digits, will all begin with a
>> >> zero, and may therefore be thought of as having only 7 digits (of
>> >> which the first is presumably never zero).  They choose to think of
>> >> them in that way.  So what?
>>
>> > Bank account numbers shouldn't be something that people "choose to
>> > think of them in that way". It is a recipe for confusion. If the
>> > banking system needs eight digits then the bank accounts should have
>> > eight digits.
>>
>> I put it to you that their accounts *do* have 8 digits, and that their
>> assertion that they have 7 is just the view of one of their numpties,
>> based on the fact that the first digit is always zero.
>>
>> Do these business accounts issue you with cheque books?  The cheques will
>> have the account number printed along the bottom.  I expect they will
>> have 8 digits.  If so, I suggest you go in and show the evidence to the
>> branch manager and complain that whichever member of staff advised you on
>> the phone is a liar.
> 
> Wow, what brilliant advice! As John Cleese would say: "Ronald's
> specialised subject - the bleeding obvious."

What's bleeding obvious is that I think you enjoy calling people liars.

> I have cheque books, bank statements and paying-in books. They all
> have seven digit account numbers.

That's interesting.  I have here (a copy of) an LTSB cheque with an
8-digit account number printed along the OCR strip, beginning with a
zero, the next digit is 6 (it's a personal account though, not
business).  The standard format on the OCR strip appears to be
"XaaaaaaX bbYbbbbZ ccccccccX" where aaaaaa is the cheque number,
bbbbbb is the sort code, cccccccc is the account number, and
X, Y, and Z are special blotch characters.

In particular, note the space between Z and the first character
of the account number.  On your business cheques, is the leading
zero actually missing or just blanked out?  I.e. is there still
just one space between the Z and the first printed digit, or are
there two?  It should be easy to tell, because the characters
are on a fixed pitch.

>> >> So, although some systems may work with 7, I doubt whether there are
>> >> any systmes which will not work with 8 when the first is zero.  So the
>> >> best general advice your bank can give you is to tell your clients to
>> >> use 8 digits starting witha  zero, and they have done.
>>
>> >> What's your problem?  I don't understand why you're being so [anagram
>> >> of Mr Ferris's first name] about it.
>>
>> > You don't seem to understand the need for consistency when systems
>> > interact.
>>
>> Of course I do, and there presumably *is* consistency, i.e. the systems
>> interact between themselves on the basis of 8 digit account numbers.
> 
> This is the reason for this thread. There isn't your presumed
> consistency.

I don't think you've presented enough facts to allow that conclusion to
be drawn.  The problem is not a lack of consistency between systems but
between user and system.  Your client's banking system is not accepting
seven digit numbers, or not converting them to 8 properly, so the case
against inter-system consistency is not proven.

>> When I said "some systems may work with 7", I did not mean that such
>> systems use 7 digits internally throughout.  I meant (do I really have
>> to explain this?) that at the stage where a person (your client)
>> interacts with their online banking system, this system may be perfectly
>> happy for the person to enter as few digits as they like, and will
>> automatically supply as many leading zeroes as necessary.
> 
> You meant wrong then. My clients complain that their system won't
> accept them entering my bank's seven digit account number.

No I didn't mean wrong.  I said "some systems may work", which clearly
implies that others may not.  You would only get to hear about those
which don't.

>> >> >> > Ronald: You're not supposed to answer that it's a joke.
>>
>> >> >> Is there some punctuation missing there?  To what sort of question
>> >> >> can you answer that it's a joke?
>>
>> >> > Here's an example: "Is Tim not a liar or is it a joke?"
>>
>> >> Well done!  Give that man a complimentary O-level in English.
>> >> Pity that sort of question wasn't asked here, though, innit?
>>
>> > It was. You just asked it.
>>
>> No, I asked "How many football supporters does it take to change a
>> lightbulb?"  That was a joke question, but not the sort of question
>> to which "it's a joke" is a possible answer.
> 
> You said: "To what sort of question can you answer that it's a joke?"

Yes, but "it's a joke" is not a valid answer to that question either.

>> My reference to punctuation came from supposing you might have
>> intended to write "You're not supposed to answer that, it's a joke."
> 
> I know.

You do agree that the version with comma has a completely different
meaning from the version without, don't you?  One means "No answer
is required because it's a joke", the other means "Do not supply
'it's a joke' as the answer".  Which of the meanings had you
intended?  The second (your original) doesn't seem to make sense.

>> > If you don't like something I'm quite happy for you to not like it.
>>
>> That's OK, I'm also happy for you to like it
> 
> So on Saturday I'll be happy liking it and you'll be happy for me to
> like it.

That's great, we'll both be happy!  If your favoured side loses, you'll
be less happy, but I won't.  I haven't a clue who'll be playing, and
couldn't care less who wins.

On 22 Aug, 15:45, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 22 Aug, 14:04, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >> PeterSaxton wrote:
> >> > On 22 Aug, 09:40, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >> >> Their account numbers, if specified as 8 digits, will all begin with a
> >> >> zero, and may therefore be thought of as having only 7 digits (of
> >> >> which the first is presumably never zero).  They choose to think of
> >> >> them in that way.  So what?
>
> >> > Bank account numbers shouldn't be something that people "choose to
> >> > think of them in that way". It is a recipe for confusion. If the
> >> > banking system needs eight digits then the bank accounts should have
> >> > eight digits.
>
> >> I put it to you that their accounts *do* have 8 digits, and that their
> >> assertion that they have 7 is just the view of one of their numpties,
> >> based on the fact that the first digit is always zero.
>
> >> Do these business accounts issue you with cheque books?  The cheques will
> >> have the account number printed along the bottom.  I expect they will
> >> have 8 digits.  If so, I suggest you go in and show the evidence to the
> >> branch manager and complain that whichever member of staff advised you on
> >> the phone is a liar.
>
> > Wow, what brilliant advice! As John Cleese would say: "Ronald's
> > specialised subject - the bleeding obvious."
>
> What's bleeding obvious is that I think you enjoy calling people liars.
>
You are wrong again.

> > I have cheque books, bank statements and paying-in books. They all
> > have seven digit account numbers.
>
> That's interesting.  I have here (a copy of) an LTSB cheque with an
> 8-digit account number printed along the OCR strip, beginning with a
> zero, the next digit is 6 (it's a personal account though, not
> business).  The standard format on the OCR strip appears to be
> "XaaaaaaX bbYbbbbZ ccccccccX" where aaaaaa is the cheque number,
> bbbbbb is the sort code, cccccccc is the account number, and
> X, Y, and Z are special blotch characters.
>
> In particular, note the space between Z and the first character
> of the account number.  On your business cheques, is the leading
> zero actually missing or just blanked out?  I.e. is there still
> just one space between the Z and the first printed digit, or are
> there two?  It should be easy to tell, because the characters
> are on a fixed pitch.
>
two spaces
>
> >> >> So, although some systems may work with 7, I doubt whether there are
> >> >> any systmes which will not work with 8 when the first is zero.  So the
> >> >> best general advice your bank can give you is to tell your clients to
> >> >> use 8 digits starting witha  zero, and they have done.
>
> >> >> What's your problem?  I don't understand why you're being so [anagram
> >> >> of Mr Ferris's first name] about it.
>
> >> > You don't seem to understand the need for consistency when systems
> >> > interact.
>
> >> Of course I do, and there presumably *is* consistency, i.e. the systems
> >> interact between themselves on the basis of 8 digit account numbers.
>
> > This is the reason for this thread. There isn't your presumed
> > consistency.
>
> I don't think you've presented enough facts to allow that conclusion to
> be drawn.  The problem is not a lack of consistency between systems but
> between user and system.  Your client's banking system is not accepting
> seven digit numbers, or not converting them to 8 properly, so the case
> against inter-system consistency is not proven.
>
If my clients banking system is not dealing with my banks account
numbers properly then it is proven.

> >> When I said "some systems may work with 7", I did not mean that such
> >> systems use 7 digits internally throughout.  I meant (do I really have
> >> to explain this?) that at the stage where a person (your client)
> >> interacts with their online banking system, this system may be perfectly
> >> happy for the person to enter as few digits as they like, and will
> >> automatically supply as many leading zeroes as necessary.
>
> > You meant wrong then. My clients complain that their system won't
> > accept them entering my bank's seven digit account number.
>
> No I didn't mean wrong.  I said "some systems may work", which clearly
> implies that others may not.  You would only get to hear about those
> which don't.
>
This is the whole point of what I'm saying. It's a mess if people
can't make payments simply by knowing the other person's banking
details.
>
> >> >> >> > Ronald: You're not supposed to answer that it's a joke.
>
> >> >> >> Is there some punctuation missing there?  To what sort of question
> >> >> >> can you answer that it's a joke?
>
> >> >> > Here's an example: "Is Tim not a liar or is it a joke?"
>
> >> >> Well done!  Give that man a complimentary O-level in English.
> >> >> Pity that sort of question wasn't asked here, though, innit?
>
> >> > It was. You just asked it.
>
> >> No, I asked "How many football supporters does it take to change a
> >> lightbulb?"  That was a joke question, but not the sort of question
> >> to which "it's a joke" is a possible answer.
>
> > You said: "To what sort of question can you answer that it's a joke?"
>
> Yes, but "it's a joke" is not a valid answer to that question either.
>
> >> My reference to punctuation came from supposing you might have
> >> intended to write "You're not supposed to answer that, it's a joke."
>
> > I know.
>
> You do agree that the version with comma has a completely different
> meaning from the version without, don't you?  One means "No answer
> is required because it's a joke", the other means "Do not supply
> 'it's a joke' as the answer".  Which of the meanings had you
> intended?  The second (your original) doesn't seem to make sense.
>
This is why it's common sense to choose the one that makes sense.

> >> > If you don't like something I'm quite happy for you to not like it.
>
> >> That's OK, I'm also happy for you to like it
>
> > So on Saturday I'll be happy liking it and you'll be happy for me to
> > like it.
>
> That's great, we'll both be happy!  If your favoured side loses, you'll
> be less happy, but I won't.  I haven't a clue who'll be playing, and
> couldn't care less who wins.-

PeterSaxton wrote:

> On 22 Aug, 15:45, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> PeterSaxton wrote:
>> > I have cheque books, bank statements and paying-in books. They all
>> > have seven digit account numbers.
>>
>> That's interesting.  I have here (a copy of) an LTSB cheque with an
>> 8-digit account number printed along the OCR strip, beginning with a
>> zero, the next digit is 6 (it's a personal account though, not
>> business).  The standard format on the OCR strip appears to be
>> "XaaaaaaX bbYbbbbZ ccccccccX" where aaaaaa is the cheque number,
>> bbbbbb is the sort code, cccccccc is the account number, and
>> X, Y, and Z are special blotch characters.
>>
>> In particular, note the space between Z and the first character
>> of the account number.  On your business cheques, is the leading
>> zero actually missing or just blanked out?  I.e. is there still
>> just one space between the Z and the first printed digit, or are
>> there two?  It should be easy to tell, because the characters
>> are on a fixed pitch.
> 
> two spaces

Thank you.  Aha!  So they *do* have 8 digits, but they've simply
obscured the first to make it look as though there are 7, rather
than actually removed it.  It's still an 8-character field, and
they've replaced the leading zero with a space.

I fully concur with your sentiment that it's a stupid idea.

>> > This is the reason for this thread. There isn't your presumed
>> > consistency.
>>
>> I don't think you've presented enough facts to allow that conclusion to
>> be drawn.  The problem is not a lack of consistency between systems but
>> between user and system.  Your client's banking system is not accepting
>> seven digit numbers, or not converting them to 8 properly, so the case
>> against inter-system consistency is not proven.
> 
> If my clients banking system is not dealing with my banks account
> numbers properly then it is proven.

It is not proven that there is a consistency problem *between systems*,
unless you think of your client as a "system".

>> No I didn't mean wrong.  I said "some systems may work", which clearly
>> implies that others may not.  You would only get to hear about those
>> which don't.
> 
> This is the whole point of what I'm saying. It's a mess if people
> can't make payments simply by knowing the other person's banking
> details.

But they can.  They simply need to be savvy enough to realise that
the system they're talking to (*their* bank's) expects account numbers
in 8-digit format, and that the obvious way to deal with a shorter
number is to add leading zeroes.  Actually I'd expect systems like
that to be a bit more helpful and to give their users just that
advice at the time they reject the number, but I guess they can't
all be perfect.

Hell, if someone were to want to pay money to *me* by direct transfer
instead of by cheque, I would tell them the six digits of my account
number without bothering to mention the two leading zeroes even though
those leading zeroes *are* actually printed on my cheques and statements.
I would expect my other parties to supply the zeroes themselves if needed,
without having to ask me.

I would have expected *you* to be savvy enough to tell your client
to put in a leading zero, without bothering to enquire with LTSB first.

>> You do agree that the version with comma has a completely different
>> meaning from the version without, don't you?  One means "No answer
>> is required because it's a joke", the other means "Do not supply
>> 'it's a joke' as the answer".  Which of the meanings had you
>> intended?  The second (your original) doesn't seem to make sense.
> 
> This is why it's common sense to choose the one that makes sense.

If you'd written what you meant, it wouldn't have been necessary to
choose.  Still, at least I chose right.

Your client didn't.  :-)

On 22 Aug, 17:14, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 22 Aug, 15:45, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >> PeterSaxton wrote:
> >> > I have cheque books, bank statements and paying-in books. They all
> >> > have seven digit account numbers.
>
> >> That's interesting.  I have here (a copy of) an LTSB cheque with an
> >> 8-digit account number printed along the OCR strip, beginning with a
> >> zero, the next digit is 6 (it's a personal account though, not
> >> business).  The standard format on the OCR strip appears to be
> >> "XaaaaaaX bbYbbbbZ ccccccccX" where aaaaaa is the cheque number,
> >> bbbbbb is the sort code, cccccccc is the account number, and
> >> X, Y, and Z are special blotch characters.
>
> >> In particular, note the space between Z and the first character
> >> of the account number.  On your business cheques, is the leading
> >> zero actually missing or just blanked out?  I.e. is there still
> >> just one space between the Z and the first printed digit, or are
> >> there two?  It should be easy to tell, because the characters
> >> are on a fixed pitch.
>
> > two spaces
>
> Thank you.  Aha!  So they *do* have 8 digits, but they've simply
> obscured the first to make it look as though there are 7, rather
> than actually removed it.  It's still an 8-character field, and
> they've replaced the leading zero with a space.
>
> I fully concur with your sentiment that it's a stupid idea.
>
> >> > This is the reason for this thread. There isn't your presumed
> >> > consistency.
>
> >> I don't think you've presented enough facts to allow that conclusion to
> >> be drawn.  The problem is not a lack of consistency between systems but
> >> between user and system.  Your client's banking system is not accepting
> >> seven digit numbers, or not converting them to 8 properly, so the case
> >> against inter-system consistency is not proven.
>
> > If my clients banking system is not dealing with my banks account
> > numbers properly then it is proven.
>
> It is not proven that there is a consistency problem *between systems*,
> unless you think of your client as a "system".
>
> >> No I didn't mean wrong.  I said "some systems may work", which clearly
> >> implies that others may not.  You would only get to hear about those
> >> which don't.
>
> > This is the whole point of what I'm saying. It's a mess if people
> > can't make payments simply by knowing the other person's banking
> > details.
>
> But they can.  They simply need to be savvy enough to realise that
> the system they're talking to (*their* bank's) expects account numbers
> in 8-digit format, and that the obvious way to deal with a shorter
> number is to add leading zeroes.  Actually I'd expect systems like
> that to be a bit more helpful and to give their users just that
> advice at the time they reject the number, but I guess they can't
> all be perfect.
>
> Hell, if someone were to want to pay money to *me* by direct transfer
> instead of by cheque, I would tell them the six digits of my account
> number without bothering to mention the two leading zeroes even though
> those leading zeroes *are* actually printed on my cheques and statements.
> I would expect my other parties to supply the zeroes themselves if needed> without having to ask me.
>
> I would have expected *you* to be savvy enough to tell your client
> to put in a leading zero, without bothering to enquire with LTSB first.
>
> >> You do agree that the version with comma has a completely different
> >> meaning from the version without, don't you?  One means "No answer
> >> is required because it's a joke", the other means "Do not supply
> >> 'it's a joke' as the answer".  Which of the meanings had you
> >> intended?  The second (your original) doesn't seem to make sense.
>
> > This is why it's common sense to choose the one that makes sense.
>
> If you'd written what you meant, it wouldn't have been necessary to
> choose.  Still, at least I chose right.
>
> Your client didn't.  :-)-

I've suggested that they show the leading zero but they say they
can't. Whether I was talking to anybody who knew what they were
talking about is another matter. In any large organisation most people
seem to think it's good enough to say anything and not care whether it
even makes sense.

So your account number is 00123456 and you quote that as 123456?

PeterSaxton wrote:

> So your account number is 00123456 and you quote that as 123456?

Yes, I would.

To clarify, that's how I would say it when *speaking* to a person
(face to face or over the phone).  Perhaps I might then, as a sort
of by-the-way, add that they might need to stick two zeroes on the
front in some contexts, but I'd only do that if I knew they were
going to use it on line and if I weren't sure they'd know to do
that anyway.  If they were going to use the number to set up a
standing order by writing informally to their bank, I wouldn't
bother - I'd expect their bank to make proper sense of it.

When saying it in writing (letter or email) it'd be more economical
just to quote the full 8 digits with zeroes, than to go in for all
that by the way stuff.

On Aug 22, 11:34 pm, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain>
wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > So your account number is 00123456 and you quote that as 123456?
>
> Yes, I would.
>
> To clarify, that's how I would say it when *speaking* to a person
> (face to face or over the phone).  Perhaps I might then, as a sort
> of by-the-way, add that they might need to stick two zeroes on the
> front in some contexts, but I'd only do that if I knew they were
> going to use it on line and if I weren't sure they'd know to do
> that anyway.  If they were going to use the number to set up a
> standing order by writing informally to their bank, I wouldn't
> bother - I'd expect their bank to make proper sense of it.
>
> When saying it in writing (letter or email) it'd be more economical
> just to quote the full 8 digits with zeroes, than to go in for all
> that by the way stuff.

What a great thread!

If it's of interest Lloyds TSB is a bit of an interesting case when it
comes to account numbers.
Historically Lloyds Bank issued account numbers of any length up to 7
digits - and in the old days leading zeros were taken as a given in
all account numbers less than 8 digits, as largely only Banks had to
deal with them.  TSB issued 8 digit numbers.  When the two banks
merged all of the personal accounts were moved to the TSB system and
became by default 8 digits (with leading zeros for legacy Lloyds
accounts), while business accounts remained on the old Lloyds system -
so in many cases still have 7 (or less) digits. This is why a personal
account will be shown as 0xxxxxxx on a statement / cheque where as a
business account may show as xxxxxx with no leading zero.

"PeterSaxton" wrote
> Given that you can get an O-level in a subject
> without studying the subject it's a sad state of affairs.

Where can you get an O-level from without studying?

On 23 Aug, 12:18, "Tim"  wrote:
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>
> > Given that you can get an O-level in a subject
> > without studying the subject it's a sad state of affairs.
>
> Where can you get an O-level from without studying?

Anywhere. You only need to sit the exam.

On 22 Aug, 23:47, ajh...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 22, 11:34 pm, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > PeterSaxton wrote:
> > > So your account number is 00123456 and you quote that as 123456?
>
> > Yes, I would.
>
> > To clarify, that's how I would say it when *speaking* to a person
> > (face to face or over the phone).  Perhaps I might then, as a sort
> > of by-the-way, add that they might need to stick two zeroes on the
> > front in some contexts, but I'd only do that if I knew they were
> > going to use it on line and if I weren't sure they'd know to do
> > that anyway.  If they were going to use the number to set up a
> > standing order by writing informally to their bank, I wouldn't
> > bother - I'd expect their bank to make proper sense of it.
>
> > When saying it in writing (letter or email) it'd be more economical
> > just to quote the full 8 digits with zeroes, than to go in for all
> > that by the way stuff.
>
> What a great thread!
>
> If it's of interest Lloyds TSB is a bit of an interesting case when it
> comes to account numbers.
> Historically Lloyds Bank issued account numbers of any length up to 7
> digits - and in the old days leading zeros were taken as a given in
> all account numbers less than 8 digits, as largely only Banks had to
> deal with them.  TSB issued 8 digit numbers.  When the two banks
> merged all of the personal accounts were moved to the TSB system and
> became by default 8 digits (with leading zeros for legacy Lloyds
> accounts), while business accounts remained on the old Lloyds system -
> so in many cases still have 7 (or less) digits. This is why a personal
> account will be shown as 0xxxxxxx on a statement / cheque where as a
> business account may show as xxxxxx with no leading zero.-

Online I can transfer money between personal accounts immediately but
between personal and business it happens overnight. I also can see my
personal bank accounts immediately but my business bank accounts are a
day behind.

"PeterSaxton"  wrote in message 
news:3272cece-88ab-4022-9b30-a9e398e6e714@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 23 Aug, 12:18, "Tim"  wrote:
>> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>>
>> > Given that you can get an O-level in a subject
>> > without studying the subject it's a sad state of affairs.
>>
>> Where can you get an O-level from without studying?
>
> Anywhere. You only need to sit the exam.

Really?

I thought that 75% of the marks come from your continuous assessments.

I would love you to be right, but I don't think you are

tim

>> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> > Given that you can get an O-level in a subject
>> > without studying the subject it's a sad state of affairs.
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> Where can you get an O-level from without studying?
>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
> Anywhere. You only need to sit the exam.

Can you sit it at any local school?

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 04:39:19 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton
 wrote:

>I have been assured by my bank that they are correct to state that
>their account numbers are seven digits. Despite this they tell me that
>if anybody wants to pay me money they have to quote a leading "0"!
>Where is the logic in that?

Interesting therefore that both of on-line accounts business accounts
I have access to show 8 digits with the leading zero.

Alliance & Leicester have different a/c numbers depending on whether
dealing internally or externally.


-- 
AnthonyL

On 25 Aug, 11:00, "tim....."  wrote:
> "PeterSaxton"  wrote in message
>
> news:3272cece-88ab-4022-9b30-a9e398e6e714@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 23 Aug, 12:18, "Tim"  wrote:
> >> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>
> >> > Given that you can get an O-level in a subject
> >> > without studying the subject it's a sad state of affairs.
>
> >> Where can you get an O-level from without studying?
>
> > Anywhere. You only need to sit the exam.
>
> Really?
>
> I thought that 75% of the marks come from your continuous assessments.
>
> I would love you to be right, but I don't think you are
>
> tim

That's changing in September due to the cheating taking place. When I
took O levels and A levels you could just apply to sit the
examinations and the studying was up to yourself. What I was meaning
was that the exams are so simple nowadays that somebody with general
knowledge can pass the exam papers whereas 40 years ago the exams were
more rigorous.