Executive summary

We currently stand at a critical juncture in the development of UK payments. The way we pay is rapidly changing due to the pace of technological change. At the same time, our payments infrastructure is ageing and is long overdue an upgrade to allow the UK to remain at the forefront of payments innovation. As decisions are made about the future of the UK’s retail payments infrastructure, it’s imperative that what consumers want and need from payments is heard and reflected in what is developed.

To this end, Which? conducted a public dialogue in September and October this year. We took a public dialogue approach because despite payments being integral to our daily life, their future evolution is inherently complex. A deliberative approach tackles this by enabling constructive and informed conversation among diverse citizens and experts on strategic areas. This deliberative process involved 41 participants from Bristol and Bradford engaging in 14-hours of in-depth discussion including experts to actively explore their different needs and preferences for a future payments system and the practicality of delivering these from a systems perspective.

The core message from this dialogue is clear: consumers need payments to help them stay in control of their money

In an increasingly digitalised world where cost of living pressures have made it harder for people to feel on top of their finances, where consumers and businesses alike face huge cyber-security threats, and where consumers are constantly being offered more online shopping choices, consumers crave a payments system that gives them this feeling of control. 

There is a strong appetite for more visible, predictable and flexible payments that can make consumers feel more in control of their everyday spending and recurring payments. Currently, consumers are provided with elements of control by consumer-centric features often delivered via banks' or payment firms’ apps. Participants often spoke warmly about such features. However, the ability to give control to consumers can be stymied by the way a payment scheme is built, or how scheme rules are drafted, and the inability to adapt infrastructure to new risks and needs. Frustrations cited included:

• Direct Debits not ‘working’ at the weekend;
• the lack of visibility of Continuous Payment Authorities (CPAs) in bank accounts; and 
• payments remaining pending for some time.

These areas of frustrations are where consumers see payments as being inconvenient and failing to meet their expectations to deliver more control. They would welcome future innovation to address these issues. However, in general they are not actively seeking improvements to be made in payment speed, feeling they have optimal speed in paying today. Looking to the future, consumers expressed caution about moving to a more frictionless system, fearing that it may erode social interaction, increase isolation and lower their feeling of control (eg through leading to overspending).

Consumers' desire for control is also visible in their expectations for security, protection, choice and resilience.

Security and Protections: the foundation of control

Strong security and adequate payment protections are central to consumers’ maintaining a feeling of control over their personal finances and purchases. Fraud is feared precisely because it results in a loss of control, leaving people reliant on their bank for reimbursement while criminals are spending their hard earned money. 

Participants view payment security as a shared endeavour, with responsibilities distributed between consumers, banks and payment providers, government and regulators. Although reassured both by the extent of what banks do to protect their payments, consumers place a high value on payment purchase protections (eg chargeback and Section 75) as a crucial last line of defence. These protections reinforce their sense of control over their shopping experiences.

Choice: greater control to more people

Most of the time, participants didn’t see an overarching need for greater choice in the payment options open to them individually. Instead, participants felt that greater choice should be deployed as a tool to ensure that payments become more accessible and inclusive, delivering greater control to a wider range of people. Crucially though, people need compelling reasons to try and to trust new payment providers and methods.

Resilience: maintaining control in all circumstances

Recent high profile cyber hacks were at the front of participants' minds and meant they prioritised the need to have back up payment options to ensure both personally being able to pay and the system as a whole continues to operate. The tangibility of cash makes participants feel more in control and acts as a personal safeguard against larger scale digital events that are outside of their control. Despite being sceptical that resilience can be delivered through solely digital means, participants are open to being convinced how this might be achieved.

Recommendations

Based on the detailed discussions and insights from the payments dialogue, we make three strategic recommendations to ensure that the consumer interest is embedded in the development of future payments both now and on an ongoing basis:

1. Government’s central role: Payments are critical to the functioning of modern society. Participants want and expect the government to play a central role in guaranteeing the resilience of essential payments infrastructure, setting the strategic direction for payments innovations, and defining public policy challenges to be addressed.
2. Consumer engagement is critical: Members of the public are able to quickly grasp complex topics, assess trade-offs and conflicts, understand the different drivers which motivate actors in the payments ecosystem, and suggest pragmatic and realistic ways forward. Engaging with a cross section of consumers should be a mandatory and integral part of the policy and design process which will determine the future of payments in the UK.
3. Dynamic and responsive systems: The payments system must retain a sense of dynamism and remain responsive to consumer needs and preferences. The Payments Vision Delivery Committee (PVDC) must ensure there are regular (eg annual) reviews of the current state of UK payments. Mechanisms should be put in place to increase the ambition of standards / schemes over time, in line with changes in consumer expectations and technological developments.

Immediate improvements consumers want to see

Through conducting this public dialogue, this research identified a number of immediate, practical improvements consumers want to see in payments that will give them greater control. These should be actively explored by the Retail Payments Infrastructure Board (RPIB) and Delivery Company under the innovative new model to deliver the next generation of UK retail payments infrastructure. Further consumer engagement will be required in each of these areas to ensure their design meets end-user needs. These immediate improvements include:

1. modernising payment protections to reflect how people shop now (eg via online marketplaces, booking platforms, social media sites).
2. optimising and personalising security to minimise disruption but still reassure consumers.
3. offering less clunky person-to-person payment options which simplify setting up new payees.
4. giving consumers more clarity and certainty about when payments leave their account.
5. putting consumers in control of recurring payments through the adoption of commercial Variable Recurring Payments (cVRPs) with the right protections.
6. developing and promoting features which offer consumers greater convenience and control, such as notifications, pots and better options to allow people who need extra help with their money to give trusted individuals limited access to funds.
7. addressing the inability to make offline digital payments to give consumers more confidence in the resilience of digital payments.

Introduction

We currently stand at a critical juncture in the development of UK payments. The way we pay is rapidly changing due to the pace of technological change. At the same time, our payments infrastructure is ageing and is long overdue an upgrade to allow the UK to remain at the forefront of payments innovation. 

Recognising this ‘inflection point’, and the consequent need for action, the UK government has taken a series of important steps over the last year. It published the National Payments Vision (NPV) which seeks to achieve a trusted, world-leading payments ecosystem delivered on next generation technology, where consumers and businesses have a choice of payment methods to meet their needs. Building on this, the Payments Vision Delivery Committee (PVDC) announced an innovative new governance model. The PVDC is a senior cross-authority group featuring the Bank of England, Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR), and chaired by HM Treasury. Its new model seeks to drive the renewal of the UK’s retail payments infrastructure, and is based on collaboration between the public and private sectors, signifying a greater involvement for government and the regulators in strategic decisions about payments. 

In November 2025 the PVDC published its Strategy for Future Retail Payments Infrastructure. This document featured five high-level strategic outcomes anchored around expanding payment choices, promoting inclusion, combating financial crime and ensuring resilience. The newly-formed Retail Payments Infrastructure Board, chaired by the Bank of England and including broad representation across the payments ecosystem, is tasked with leading design and delivery oversight of the Strategy.

With this flurry of activity, it’s clear that foundational building blocks are being put in place to enable a transformation of the UK retail payments infrastructure. Over the next few years, a series of far-reaching decisions will need to be made to turn the aspirations of the NPV, and the desired outcomes of the PVDC strategy, into reality. 

As decisions are made about the future of the UK’s retail payments infrastructure, it’s imperative that what consumers want and need from payments is heard and reflected in what is developed. On this front, both the National Payments Vision and the PVDC Strategy say many of the right things, for example the Strategy asserts that it “has been developed with the needs of users, including those of end users, at its core.” Meanwhile, both the FCA [1] and PSR [2] have explicit statutory objectives to protect consumers and take their needs into account.

Some might question whether this really matters - isn’t it better to focus on the technical aspects of building payments infrastructure or developing scheme rules first and leave all the end-user stuff until later? This would be a fundamental mistake, and could potentially undermine government ambitions. Recent history makes clear that failure often follows when initiatives don’t actively seek and reflect consumer input, for example industry plans to phase out cheques which had to be abandoned since the proposals did not properly consult with, or account for, consumers who relied on this payment method. Meanwhile, the struggle for adoption and the subsequent withdrawal of PayM was at least partially due to a failure to properly take account of the consumer interest when building the user experience [3]. 

Over recent years we have also seen that the primary focus of payments initiatives has often been on delivering a technical solution or meeting commercial industry interests, such as meeting industry demands for speed and convenience. While it is right that new payments initiatives take account of commercial considerations, this should not be at the expense of consumer interests. Prioritising the commercial focus has meant that payments propositions have not met wider societal needs, most notably in the failure to develop and deliver inclusive digital payments options. To date, the full social and economic cost of this failure has been masked by an ongoing reliance on cash as an alternative. However, as the trend away from cash usage and acceptance continues, the risks and costs associated with this approach are likely to increase significantly. More pressingly, this accelerating trend increases the risk of people being actively excluded from essential services and everyday life. People may struggle to pay for things like public transport or car parking because inclusive digital alternatives have not been developed. This makes the need to tackle payment exclusion an increasingly urgent issue, and one that will worsen over time unless proactively addressed.

The exclusion of consumer voices has also meant that payments developments have not addressed issues of most importance to them. In several cases the payments industry has had to introduce extremely costly, reactive measures to correct flaws in the system. These problems could have been better addressed in the formative stages of development if consumer input had been sought about what they want and need from payments. A good example is the Confirmation of Payee (CoP) service. CoP checks if the payment recipient’s name matches the account details. However, it was only introduced many years after the Faster Payments System went live, and after countless instances of misdirected payments and Authorised Push Payments (APP) where criminals tricked consumers into sending money to accounts using fake names. 

This failure to integrate consumer wants and needs into the development of payments initiatives has continued with more recent initiatives. Even now - some eight years after Open Banking launched in the UK, and with rising numbers of Open Banking payments now being made - these payments still do not feature any form of payment purchase  protections. The Open Banking Implementation Entity (OBIE) featured both a designated Consumer Representative and an SME (Small and Medium Enterprise) Representative on its Steering Group so the technical implementation served the needs and interests of end-users. Although they were able to achieve notable successes, for example in the development of the Customer Experience Guidelines, they had limited formal decision-making power within the OBIE's governance structure, meaning their input amounted to more of an advisory role.  

Looked at in the round, we can see that the UK has persistently followed a model that does not work well for consumers or the payments industry. This approach has necessitated extremely costly retrospective action to correct flaws in the system which could have been better addressed at the formative stages of development. 

We now have a once in a generation opportunity to learn from past mistakes and to do something differently. This is not just about embedding the consumer voice at the heart of payments, to ensure that the single biggest user group has an opportunity to influence what is developed. It’s about seeking a way to do things better and smarter, to avoid the need for subsequent costly interventions, and to ensure that future payments innovations truly meet consumer needs now and over their lifetime. 

The NPV and the associated PVDC Strategy address some of these issues, for example signalling more involvement from government and the regulators in setting the strategic direction for payments innovations, and defining public policy challenges to be addressed (eg to tackle fraud and to address digital payments exclusion). But there is more to do to ensure that what is developed properly takes account of the consumer interest. It's important that as we stand on the cusp of a new dawn for payments in the UK, we don’t just pay lip-service to the need to meet consumer needs but make the most of this moment, and embed it in the way that payments innovations and initiatives are developed. 

What we know about consumers

Past research and behavioural data have been valuable in highlighting changing consumer behaviours, what consumers’ top priorities are when using different payment systems and the needs of specific communities experiencing challenges.

Payment behaviours

Consumers’ payment behaviours have changed dramatically over the years, most notably a shift away from cash towards digital methods in the last 20 years. This digital transition was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Debit cards are now the dominant payment method, accounting for over half of all UK payments in 2024, with contactless and digital mobile wallets having seen rapid adoption in recent years, particularly among younger demographics.  Despite the dominance of digital payments, cash remains essential for a significant minority of the population. 

What people want from payments

Past consumer research has consistently shown that people prioritise convenience, ease of use and speed in their payment methods of choice. However, as noted in the Future of Payments Review, “the critical needs of reliability and security are assumed”. Other important factors to consumers include familiarity, control, flexibility, and trust. More granular research, such as the PSR’s annual consumer research reports, have shown how these priorities change in different scenarios and settings, showing that ease of use and speed matter more for frequent, low-value payments, while protection and security become more important for larger payments, and reliability is key for recurring payments. While these insights are valuable in highlighting the broad priorities for consumers, they do not engage with the practicality of delivering these preferences, or the insights only apply to specific payment methods, meaning that they cannot be extrapolated to consumers' overall needs and preferences from a future payments system. 

Consumer harm in payments today

Many organisations have conducted important research evidencing the consumer harm that some consumers experience in making payments. The Access to Cash review and subsequent publications, such as the cash census, have shown where cash ceases to be accepted, those who cannot or do not wish to use digital payments face increased risks of social exclusion, as well as overspending and going into debt. Other research has highlighted further consumer harm in payments, including poverty premiums for people who cannot or do not wish to use specific digital payment methods or significant gaps in both the protections consumers have for different types of payments and their understanding of these payments. 

Additionally, certain groups, such as adults with a learning disability, people with visual or hearing impairments or care receivers, can face significant challenges with payments. There has been a lot of valuable research with people with lived experience exploring their needs and preferences. These projects have been instrumental in driving innovations in the support offered to specific groups, such as carers’ cards, spending controls and accessible chip and PIN devices. While there are many digital features available today that support people’s needs, the variation in their functionality, together with the relatively small size of specific user groups, has made it relatively difficult to make practical progress towards market-wide adoption of these tools. This means that access to these tools and features remain fragmented and depend on who a customer banks with and their ability to know about and opt in to the services available. 

In summary, we already know a lot about how people make payments, their general views towards and preferences for how payment systems should operate and areas of consumer harm today. None of this past research, however, have actively engaged with the practicality of delivering these preferences from a systems perspective and how they would translate into a future payments system. 

Methodology: A public dialogue

As the UK’s consumer champion, Which? wants to ensure that the work of the PVDC to deliver the National Payments Vision reflects the needs and preferences of all UK consumers. A public dialogue approach was chosen for this purpose. 

As consumers, we make payments almost every day of our lives. However, thinking about the future of payments - for individuals, wider society, and the industry - is complex. Public dialogue is a deliberative process during which members of the public interact with specialists, stakeholders and each other to deliberate on issues relevant to future decisions. It enables constructive conversations amongst diverse groups of citizens on complex topics. Not only does it provide in-depth insight into public opinion, it also offers a window into understanding people’s reasoning.

Deliberative research specialists, Hopkins Van Mil (HVM), were commissioned to conduct this research project in partnership with Which?. This partnership approach meant that both Which? and HVM took an active role in designing the research process as well as managing both the project fieldwork and analysis.

Structure of the research

Prior to the start of the public dialogue, Which? conducted 20 interviews with stakeholders across the world of payments. This included payment experts, consumer group representatives, large retailers and retail group representatives. These interviews were conducted to improve our understanding of the variety of views and perspectives on the UK payments system today and potential for future innovation. These interviews helped inform the design and generation of research material for the public dialogue. 

The future of payments public dialogue involved 41 participants who took part in 14-hours of deliberation over the course of four workshops from early September until mid-October 2025. Participants attended an online context webinar, three online workshops and one in-person workshop (Table 1). They also spent up to an hour contributing their thoughts in their own time to an online space, Recollective. 

Each session was carefully designed to build upon the learning and discussions of the previous session, with the structure and content adapted iteratively in response to emerging insights as the dialogue progressed. During each workshop we utilised a range of methods to inform participants and give them the space to deliberate. These included presentations from the Which? research team, expert external speakers, small group discussions and practical exercises. The breakdown of the workshop structure is outlined in the table below.

Table 1: The research process

Between each workshop participants were asked to complete small tasks on the online space, Recollective, and were able to re-watch the expert speaker presentations. More detail of the research process can be found in the Annex. 

The participants

To ensure a diverse range of public perspectives, participants were recruited through HVM’s specialist partner, Acumen, following a detailed recruitment specification developed by HVM and Which?. The recruitment approach was designed to reduce the likelihood of bias and achieve demographic balance across the overall sample in terms of age, gender, life stage, social grade, household income and ethnicity, to broadly reflect the UK population.

A total of 46 adults were recruited to achieve 41 participants across two locations: Bristol and Bradford [5]. Participants were recruited from areas within a 10-mile radius of both locations, with a mix of urban and rural residents included. We chose these locations because the south west and Bradford had amongst the highest and lowest drops in cash use during the pandemic, respectively. Additionally, they suitably offered a good mix of urban and nearby rural inhabitants and diversity of population to conduct the research.

To achieve the aim of reflecting the needs of all consumers, including those who might struggle to make payments, the sampling employed targeted quotas to boost representation among groups whose voices are often underrepresented or who might face particular challenges in making payments, including disabled people or those with long-term health conditions reliant on care, carers, and people in financially vulnerable circumstances, including living on fluctuating incomes. Participants were selected to include those with varying levels of financial literacy, digital confidence and at least two in each group were reliant on cash. 

Participants were also screened to exclude anyone working in financial services, fintech, consumer policy or regulation to ensure that the dialogue genuinely represented consumer perspectives, not professional or sectoral interests.

Advisory Group

We appointed an independent advisory group for the public dialogue to provide constructive challenge to Which? on the overall approach to the research and its relevance and to advise on the appropriateness and balance of the information and stimulus included in the research.  Advisory group members represented a wide range of experts across the payments industry, including banks, payment providers, retailers and consumers (see page 1 for the list of advisory group members). 

The advisory group met three times during the project, providing feedback on the purpose of the project, structure of and materials used in the research and to discuss emerging findings and policy recommendations. Their feedback was influential and constructive throughout the research project. They challenged us to be more future framing in our design, ensuring that participants both thought through the pros and cons of the payments system today but also looked to the future, exploring the opportunities and risks that could arise. They were instrumental in helping to shape the questions we asked participants on how individual features of the payments system should work and the framing of our future system design scenarios.   

A note on language and reporting on a qualitative process

This project was designed as a public dialogue, a qualitative approach that brings together members of the public to learn about, discuss and reflect on complex issues in society. Rather than seeking statistical representation or quantifiable measures of opinion, public dialogue focuses on the depth and diversity of views. It enables participants to consider new information, explore trade-offs and deliberate collectively about what matters most to them and to society. 

Findings presented in this report are therefore interpretive and illustrative. They reflect the themes, priorities and reasoning expressed by participants during discussions, rather than fixed percentages of opinion that can be generalised. The insights represent what participants thought and felt after they had the opportunity to engage with expert evidence, hear others’ perspectives and reflect on their own experiences. 

Throughout the report we use qualitative language, such as many participants feel … a few participants raised concerns that… there is broad agreement that… These phrases indicate the balance of views observed throughout the dialogue while recognising that there was nuance and variation within and between groups. 

Our aim throughout this report is to represent our participant’s views accurately and in their words, wherever possible. Quotations are used to illustrate key themes, with identifying details and filler words removed to conserve anonymity and aid clarity.

This report

The rest of this report presents our research findings and recommendations to the payments industry as follows:

Chapter 1: How consumers feel about payments - the context to our future dialogue discussions outlines how our participants view payments today and three critical factors which influenced participants' views towards future payments innovation.

Chapters 2 to 6 go through participants’ views on different pillars of a future payments system; control, security, protections, choice, and resilience.

Chapter 2: Control demonstrates the centrality of participants' desire to feel in control of their payments, emerging as an overarching theme from our dialogue. The chapter outlines areas participants have welcomed more control in recent years but also areas where the current functionality of the payments system limits consumers’ feeling of control.

Chapter 3: Security explores the importance of strong security in the payments system to participants and where they would like to see future innovation.

Chapter 4: Purchase protections covers participants' discussions on how they think payment purchase protections should be delivered in the future, as well as their interest in conditionality and reversibility of payments as alternative means of offering protection.

Chapter 5: Choice explores participants' views towards greater choice in a payments system, both from their individual perspective and a societal perspective.

Chapter 6: Resilience covers participants’ views on resilience being crucial in the future payments system, both to meet individuals’ need for personal resilience and the need for  strong system-level resilience.

Chapter 7: Summary and Recommendations brings together our research findings and recommendations, outlining a number of immediate improvements consumers want to see to payments and broader recommendations to the PVDC.

Chapter 1: How consumers feel about payments - the context to our future dialogue discussions

1.1: The vast majority of consumers are happy with their payments but still have their own individual pain points

For the vast majority of UK consumers, payments are not something they think about in their day-to-day lives. For most, it is a seamless background activity which allows them to go about their days smoothly, from purchasing a morning coffee and paying for public transport via their phones, to automatically paying for their monthly energy bill. As noted by the National Payments Vision, “the UK has long been a global leader in payments” and this is visible when talking to and surveying consumers [6]. 

At the start of our public dialogue we asked our participants how well or badly they think payments work at the moment. Almost half of them (49%) said very well and 47% fairly well. Only two participants (4%) said they work fairly badly. These figures broadly reflect a lot of consumer research into payments to date that shows the vast majority of consumers are content with their payment options, with a small but nonetheless sizable percentage of society experiencing more acute problems with their payments [7]. 

Despite the vast majority of our participants being very positive about their personal payments experience, by following our public dialogue and getting them to really think about the minutiae of payments, lots of individual pain points organically materialised. The graphic below outlines some of those that arose in participants' discussions during the first workshop, as well as the aspects of different payment options they like.  

Figure 2: Participants’ pros and cons of current payment methods

These pain points came out naturally through discussion, with participants questioning why certain systems are designed in the way they are and why they can’t work differently. Many of these pain points and benefits of different payment methods are known already, such as the reasons why many prefer to use cash over digital methods, the reasons why many choose not to use Direct Debits or the hassle of setting up new payees for bank transfers [8].

Two of the biggest current pain points for our participants were person-to-person payments and the speed of payment clearing.

Person-to-person payments

A number of participants said they found setting up person-to-person payments within banking services frustrating. Participants griped about the clunkiness of setting up a new payee, having to find out and enter their sort code and account number. One participant was frustrated that people's details are saved, even if they plan to just pay them once. 

“I know PayPal actually pays someone with their email or phone number. And I have used it more when I'm paying someone at work who I don't want to ask for their sort code and account number, because I don't want them in my bank forever. I just want to send them a one-off payment and that kind of makes it easier because I can just search my numbers, it's there, it goes.” Participant, Bradford, Workshop 2 (W2)

This rigidity in the current person-to-person infrastructure does not meet consumer needs. In our workshop on innovations, participants heard about the M-PESA payment system in Kenya that uses mobile numbers rather than account numbers for person-to-person payments. Many participants would like a similar system in the UK that works more seamlessly with the rest of the payment systems they use. 

“We were talking over the last few weeks about using your telephone number rather than your bank details and things like that, which sound to me really, really interesting. So this enhanced functionality and flexibility, using the technology we've got now, is what I would like us to be doing.” Participant, Bristol, W4

Speed of payment clearing

Delays in payments being debited from bank accounts and credit cards was raised as a stressor by many participants. They spoke about feeling frustrated that payment clearing isn’t always in real time. Participants said that in the future they wanted to be able to look at their bank account or credit card and see, immediately after a purchase, a totally accurate value of their money available or credit card spending level. 

“Even when I log on to my banking app, it says the payment is pending, but I never quite know as to whether the balance that is showing at the top is pre or post pending. So I always have to worry about that.” Participant, Bristol, W4

“Also I feel like, because it says sometimes it takes however long for money to be pulled out of your account. I also wonder if it takes a week and you go through the week and you spend a lot of money on Monday and then you don't know how much you've spent on Monday and then you keep going, keep going, keep going.” Participant, Bristol, W3

International bank transfers were also mentioned. Participants would welcome improved processing in this area. 

“If you want to do an international bank transfer it takes a horrendously long time. Why would I have my money stuck somewhere for like 30 days when I could literally go pay whatever percentage I'm charged by Western Union whatever and get it sent straight away. So I, as much as I say I don't like to pay for things, I pay for that convenience, I pay for that ease because it means that I can get what I want done faster. So yeah, I think sometimes you do have to pay for what you want.” Participant, Bradford, W4 

The need for improvement in person-to-person payments, the speed of payment clearing and the other pain points outlined in Figure 2, shows there is always room for improvement in payment systems. Additionally, the ability of different payment methods to meet consumers' needs and preferences changes over time, so agility must be built into the system design. Three recent events / changes in consumer behaviours underpinned many of participants’ conversations during this public dialogue, highlighting the need for agility. 

1.2: Hacking, increasingly digital shopping habits and cost of living pressures were topics that underpinned many of our conversations during this dialogue

Hacking

In the weeks around our workshops, the news was full of headlines about the continued impact of computer system hacks suffered by Jaguar Land Rover and Marks & Spencer [10]. There was a strong sense that if these large, household-name companies could be hacked and held to ransom by computer hackers, then parts of the payments system could be too. This context was raised most often in conversations around the security and resilience of the payments system and served to sharpen participants’ appetite for ongoing innovation to fend off hackers and scammers. 

“Judging by the last few months of the finances of large scale companies, that one would imagine have a better security than you or I, (BBC; JLR; M&S; CO-OP; Harrods), it must rock the system that the "staying in control" is no longer a certainty and the hackers seem to be winning on an unprecedented scale.” Participant, Bristol, Recollective

Shopping habits

The way we shop and where we shop, particularly the shift in online shopping from merchants to social media channels, were referred to often during our process. This is not surprising. Recent Which? research has found that nine in 10 consumers have made purchases on online platforms like eBay, Amazon Marketplace, Etsy and AliExpress within the last two years. One in nine have bought directly from either Instagram or Tiktok Shop in the last two years (12%) [11]. 

Participants spoke about their changing shopping behaviours, with many talking about their increased use of social media as a source for buying products. There is a sense that social media companies are increasingly powerful experts at keeping our attention and monetising it. Throughout the research participants had questions about how this relatively new area is regulated to protect consumers from harm. 

“When someone's advertising something like a car and they're asking for a deposit - you go, that's obviously a scam. Personally I will kind of report it immediately, saying this looks dodgy to Facebook or something but how does anything happen? I guess, if there is a gap on social media in terms of advertising and stuff like that, what can be done about it? Are there things that we can already do or do they need to be improved?” Participant, Bradford, W2

The cost of living

The ability to efficiently and effectively manage your own money has always been a crucial need for all consumers from a payments system. Despite our participants having varying levels of incomes, this need to feel more in control of their payments was seemingly front of mind for all our participants.

The cost of living crisis continues to have a lasting impact on consumer sentiment. Our Consumer Insight Tracker, which has tracked consumer sentiment for over 12 years, shows that worry about high prices has remained high throughout the last four years and doesn't show any signs of falling to pre-cost of living crisis levels. The chart below shows over four in five UK adults are currently worried about food and energy prices (both 83%) and this worry remains high across all income levels. Further, recent research by More in Common showed many feel the high cost of living is a permanent state, with 57% of Britons saying they are unsure whether the crisis will ever end.

Figure 3: Consumer worry about the price of essentials has remained high from late 2021 onwards

Rising prices and a sense that wages aren't keeping up, led participants to talk about actively choosing payment options that help them afford what they need and better manage their finances. Payment platforms offering Buy Now, Pay Later options (a form of interest-free credit that lets consumers split purchases into installments) such as Klarna were referred to in this context.

“I do tend to go to PayPal. I have also used Klarna in the past. Again, if it's a bigger sort of buy, it is nice to pay it in three without any interest.” Participant, Bristol, W1 

“It's now very easy to overspend your budget when you're tapping on a credit card. Now I try to keep all my receipts so I can have a morning of doing my admin and making sure that I haven't missed anything. And missing stuff is on a card. Whereas if you put your hand in your pocket, and you've no longer any cash, then you know, we're all working to a budget nowadays.” Participant, Bristol, W1

Spending tools like payment notifications, pots and spending controls were also mentioned as useful tools to help consumers manage their money and stay in control. Participants who weren’t aware of these tools, either because their bank doesn’t offer them or require an opt-in, were very interested in them, asking other participants questions about how they work and how they can access them. 

Chapter 2: Control

In our more digitalised world where cost of living pressures have made it harder for people to feel on top of their finances, where consumers and large businesses alike face huge cyber-security threats, and where consumers are constantly being offered more and more choices online of places to shop, staying in control of their money felt more crucial than ever for our participants. This desire for a future payments system that gives them a greater feeling of control is central to participants' vision for the future and an overarching theme from our dialogue with consumers. In this chapter, looking at everyday spending and recurring payments, we will explore the strong appetite for more visible, predictable and flexible payments that can make consumers feel more in control of their payments.

2.1: Everyday spending

Maintaining control over their everyday spending was a strong driver of participants’ preferences for the future of payments. Participants talked of wanting a clear view of where their money is going and what their financial situation looks like. 

System overlays and consumer-centric features improve control but only benefit some consumers

Currently, consumers are provided with elements of control by scheme overlays (eg Confirmation of Payee is an overlay for domestic UK-based payments applied to Faster Payments) and the development of consumer-centric features are often delivered via banks' or payment firms’ apps. During the research many participants spoke about using these new tools that have improved the visibility of their spending. Other participants, who were not aware of them, were interested in hearing about these from others. The most common tools discussed were notifications, spending forecasts and pots.

Through a series of case studies and drawing on their own experience, participants discussed how a future payments system could help people in vulnerable circumstances to feel more in control of their payments and finances. Participants felt that the specific tools that they use for their everyday spending could benefit certain groups of people or other tools could be generated to work for other vulnerable groups.   

One specific idea participants had is being able to have sight, and even approval, of what an older or younger or otherwise vulnerable family member is purchasing to check its validity. This is a spending control that several participants would like to see in the future.  

“We mentioned vulnerable people and if you know that you've got a vulnerable person in your life, there should be something built in so that you get the messages or whatever to your phone to say when this person has made a payment, because they might be able to do certain things, but if you think, “oh yeah, that's okay, mum can carry on, because that looks okay”.” Participant, Bradford, W4

Some participants see a role for Artificial Intelligence (AI) to help spot spending patterns that signify someone may be experiencing a mental health crisis and then trigger an intervention, such as contacting a carer or blocking a transaction. 

“With artificial intelligence these days, maybe it could pick up on certain patterns of people when they're spending a bit more recklessly. It might be hard to track who's just being irresponsible with the spending and who's actually got a mental health issue, but it's just something that's come to mind. And then maybe they could notify the user of the spending or give them a call or something.” Participant, Bradford, W1

Many of the ideas participants put forward in this discussion aligned with those proposed by organisations working specifically with communities experiencing challenges, for example Project Nemo and the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute.

The limitations of consumer-centric features

Despite many participants' positivity around controls and tools they now have available, participants openly discussed some of the drawbacks of them. In the first instance, many participants are unaware of the existence of these tools. Throughout the research process participants were talking to each other about the different payment options they used, with other participants probing them for more detail and saying they would look into these when they got home. This also applies to tools that could benefit vulnerable groups; one participant, for example, talked about the idea of a “carer’s account” and said they “don’t know if that exists” already or not.

Additionally, not all participants want to have these tools for their payments. For example, there is a recognition that for some people, a spending summary or forecast is something to avoid, in the same way you might avoid looking at the dial of the scales in your bathroom – life is easier if you aren’t faced with a list of all you’ve spent or upcoming transactions. 

“I personally am on a fluctuating income and I have seen on my Lloyd's Bank app a spending insights page. I'm too scared to click on it. My weekly spending varies massively, like I could have a week where I don't do anything, I just go to uni, I go to work and I could spend like, maybe like £30 per week, and that's it. But I could have a week where my friend would come down from the city and I could spend far too much money.” Participant, Bristol, W4

This prompted a debate over whether certain payment controls should be opt-in or opt-out. Some said they only want a notification to warn them if a pending payment is going to bounce or tip them into debt. Others would like to see a notification every time they spend, to make each transaction more conscious and help influence what they do and don’t buy for the rest of the day or week or what percentage of their funds they’ve spent that day. Most participants felt that, so long as they are tailorable, it should be an opt out system, as they felt most people would benefit from some sort of notification to keep track of spending and avoid it becoming out of control. 

While specific consumer-centric features can improve the visibility and control consumers have in their everyday spending, a lack of awareness of them and the fact that different tools only meet certain people’s preferences shows their limitations.

Participants feel they have optimal speed in paying today and fear a more frictionless system

Beyond the pain points of person-to-person payments and payment clearing outlined in Chapter 1, participants generally feel that payments for everyday spending are convenient for most people. They certainly do not feel that there is much improvement to be made when it comes to payment speed. 

“I feel like they've fixed that problem, really, haven't they, the faster payments? Because we get faster payments, don't we, already?” Participant, Bradford, W4

“I can't really speak for everyone, but I've never really run into a situation where I've needed a payment going faster. It's always felt like... It's been fast enough. Yeah, it's like we've got faster payments, which covers bank transfers, that's pretty much instant. We've got Direct Debits. Recurring payments doesn't really matter how long they take as long as they do. Payments by card are pretty instant and cash is obviously instant.” Participant, Bradford, W4

Looking more to the future, most participants feel that the current ease and speed of the payments system meets everyday needs and expressed caution about a more frictionless future, fearing that it may erode social interaction, increase isolation and lower their feeling of control.

“We already can pay really easily, we can just tap, so I don't know, some of it is just like, just doing it for the sake of it. Innovation for the sake of innovation.” Participant, Bristol, W4

Primarily, many were concerned about how this would impact human interaction in society, which could lead to greater social isolation for many. Some participants are specifically concerned about the impact this could have on the social value of businesses.

“I do sometimes feel that it takes away a bit from human interaction because we're all using self-service tills. We're sitting, looking at our phone, ordering a meal on our app, which is a bit depressing. You're not actually talking to anyone a lot of the time… But if you're maybe older and isolated and maybe lonely in your life, then to have that all taken away from you, a very normal piece of interacting with other people, it's quite sad really, that we're increasingly going towards that.” Participant, Bristol W1

Several participants view a future society where everyday payments are frictionless as “dystopian”, where individuals move through life “like zombies”. They also spoke about the risk of it leading to the erosion of cultures and changing the nature of social spaces like coffee shops and pubs. 

“I hate that because that's not the art and craft and culture of going in a pub, it's all waiting in the bar and there's a little bit of, you know, and the barman knows who's next and it's all part of the socialisation of the people, you know, if you're just all standing in a line.” Participant, Bradford, W4

Participants are also concerned about how an increasingly frictionless payments system would make them less in control of their spending. Participants seem to like the idea of the act of spending currently and knowing what you're paying for. 

“If you are in a restaurant and it automatically charges you for what you've ordered and your presence at the restaurant, you want to make sure that that's right before you leave.” Participant, Bradford, W4

There is also the concern that more frictionless payments could encourage overspending and unhealthy financial habits. Several participants said that paying with contactless makes money seem “less real” as it requires less thought and action on the consumers’ part to make the transaction happen. Frictionless payment makes several participants feel less in control of their money, and therefore more vulnerable. Some participants feel it can also make it easier to overconsume or overspend, as shown in academic studies [14].  

“I think you would maybe end up spending more as well, picking more things up, because there's a kind of, I can't remember the figure, but it's something like 11%, I think, you spend more when you use a card, because it's less friction, you're not given any weight. That's interesting. So if you've got even less friction, that extra chocolate bar that you may need suddenly goes in every week.” Participant, Bristol, W4 

However, there were some participants that did like the idea of more seamless transactions and there were scenarios participants saw merits in hands-free/more frictionless payments. 

“I would actually rather not have that interaction. I would quite like to, for example, if I post something, I like to post it [using a locker service] because I don't have to speak to anyone. I just want to go and do what I'm doing and get whatever, and I don't really like talking to a stranger, so I'd rather just cut that out. The choice to be able to do that is actually great, I do really like that.” Participant, Bristol, W4

The couple of participants in Bristol and Bradford who did want more frictionless payments to be a focus of future payments innovation felt that it could create “less unwanted human interaction”.

2.2: Recurring payments

Recurring payments are valuable tools both to consumers and businesses, providing convenience and predictability for regular payments. Throughout our workshops we explored the benefits and drawbacks of how recurring payments work today and potential future innovation.

Rigidity in Direct Debits mean they do not always meet consumer needs

Direct Debits were widely used by our participants, with many finding them useful tools to manage their regular payments. Participants, however, brought up various shortcomings with them, specifically rigidities in their design that have meant payments aren’t always predictable. One of the main frustrations participants had is when Direct Debit payments fall on the weekend, they don’t go out on the date participants expect them to. This results in consumers feeling less in control of their regular payments as they can’t always trust their balance is reflective of their current financial situation. 

“If it lands on a weekend, it sometimes doesn't come out until the Monday. So weekend days can be hit or miss with Direct Debits.” Participant, Bristol, W1 

“It is inconvenient when a payment that's supposed to come on a certain date doesn't come out that day and it comes out either earlier or later and then you have to make sure that you've got that money in that account.” Participant, Bradford, W3

Many participants also shared their frustrations with Direct Debits where they either have little or no control over when the payments are made. They spoke about some businesses only offering one fixed date or only the 1st, 15th or 30th of the month to pay. This rigidity is at odds with the reality that many people face who are freelancers or working on zero-hour contracts and their income comes in at different times. Participants spoke about wishing to be able to tweak the timing to match their pay day. 

“Some businesses still only offer you a 1st, the 15th, or the 30th to pay your Direct Debit. That's just completely inflexible and doesn't suit so many people, the students or freelancers or whatever the reason might be where you don't have a certain amount of money consistently in your account. I really think flexibility has to be at the heart of the innovations.” Participant, Bristol, W3

“That's always driven me mad, you're like, ‘oh, can you take this payment on the first when I get paid?’ ‘No, it has to be on the 20th.’ What, when I'm out of money? No, thank you.” Participant, Bradford, W1

In the third workshop with participants, which focused on payments system innovation, they heard about India’s UPI Autopay service. The service allows customers to set up pre-authorisation of a recurring payment if it is going to be above a certain amount. Participants felt this is useful, particularly for bills which can vary quite considerably. Many participants liked the prospect of being notified via an app, rather than via an email, which is easily missed or ignored. They felt it gave them more agency over their payments. 

“The system from India, I would very much like to see authorisation for things above certain amounts, while having to manually authorise it when a recurring payment changes how much it costs. Because they have to notify you, but an email can very easily get lost. And then you're stuck on the hook for a month when you might have chosen to cancel.” Participant, Bradford, W4

“The one that was in India, the one that, if a transaction is over X amount, then you have to give your permission. I feel like that would help so many people. Obviously, you can set it to your own budget as well. So one person's budget might be £10, one might be £1,000. But I feel like that would especially make people that are a little more vulnerable feel safer as well, because they would have the option to approve, deny, et cetera, and work within their budget.” Participant, Bristol, W3

Another feature of the India UPI Autopay service that received a lot of plaudits is the visibility of all Direct Debits in one place. Some participants spoke about having Direct Debits coming out of different bank accounts and this being hard to manage effectively. 

“The UPI, the good thing with that was all your Direct Debits are under that one app, so everything's just on one app on one platform so you can adjust things accordingly how you want to make payments and you can see everything in one place. For instance with me some of my Direct Debits come out of one bank account and then some are with another bank account so I guess having some kind of separate app where you can look at all your Direct Debits and make changes and see when a payment is going to be made or change the date or the frequency of payment. I think that was quite good.” Participant, Bradford, W3

Participants felt that a system like this could help prevent people tipping into a downward debt spiral. 

“People who are sort of just living on the edge of their income, it would stop them from spiralling. I know myself when I was younger, you have a Direct Debit bounce that just has a knock-on effect, like dominoes, this bounces, this bounces, and then you can get into debt, which just becomes really, really serious.” Participant, Bradford, W3

Participants voiced support for more flexibility, and specifically being able to delay a recurring payment to allow them to better manage their outgoings with their available income. Participants were pragmatic in their wishes though, recognising the need to balance the needs of businesses in regular payments. There was acceptance among participants that a system that allows consumers to endlessly nudge payments back could lead to debt issues, and they therefore see the sense of companies offering a limited number of flex-payment opportunities.

“You can change the date up to two or three times a year or something like that. I guess it stops people running away, trying to hide from paying what they owe. They're figuring out how to make sure people don't take the mick and don't end up owing loads of money.” Participant, Bristol, W3

Invisible Continuous Payment Authorities (CPAs)

Many participants talked about their difficulty of seeing and managing the subscriptions they have. Participants shared their frustration with these payments that seem to creep out of your bank account and are not visible when you check your lists of standing orders or Direct Debits on your banking app. After explaining to them that these are delivered through Continuous Payment Authorities (CPAs), linked to their debit or credit card, several participants said they wanted them to be made more visible in the future so they can manage and cancel them more easily.

“The Continuous Payment Authorities, I prick my ears up at that because I have a number of those for various TV channels and magazine subscriptions, that kind of thing. And I diarise them. But I was struck when I looked at my banking app, it gave me a list of all my Direct Debits and standing orders, but not necessarily the continuing payment authorities. That would be very helpful.” Participant, Bradford, W3

“I have a lot of in-app subscriptions and a lot of the times I lose track. Sometimes I sign up for ones and forget that I did. And all of a sudden the money's gone and I don't know what it's for.” Participant, Bradford, W4

Research by Citizens Advice last year found that consumers spent over £600 million on unused subscriptions over the year prior, showing the harm that CPAs create through being less visible to consumers. 

2.3: The consumer desire for control

Through exploring what participants want from a future payments system, it is clear that there is a strong desire for greater control. Consumers need greater visibility, predictability and flexibility in their future payments system. 

The feeling of being in control of their money and spending is not just about the immediate experience of making payments and managing finances to our participants. Throughout the research, control was a cross cutting lens shaping how participants viewed the essential pillars of a future payments system such as security, protections, choice and resilience.

Chapter 3: Security

Consumers face a multitude of risks when they make a payment; their money going to the wrong place, being a victim of fraud or having a problem with an item or service they are paying for. Reported payment fraud hit £1.17 billion in 2024. Ensuring that we all have access to secure payment systems, and access to redress if things go wrong, is crucial in the design of future payment systems. 

3.1: Consumers welcome robust security measures

Security, fraud and protections were key features of the payments system that we explored with our research participants. Our second online workshop covered crucial elements of payments infrastructure and regulation that protect consumers and the cost of these to the payments system. Participants heard from the Head of Fraud Risk Management at a major bank as well as the Deputy Editor of Which? Money magazine on what protections they have when things go wrong with purchases.

In that workshop participants learnt that their money is protected against most types of unauthorised and authorised fraud that occurs from their bank account. Many participants were both surprised and reassured by the level of protections they have. One participant shared their experience of protections in practice.

“The banks are more likely to believe you now if you think you've had fraudulent activity on your account: I had a problem about 10 years ago and another in the last couple of months, and I found the process a lot easier to get my money back this time around.” Participant, Bristol, W2

Despite learning about the protections they have, participants were still hugely concerned about fraud and security threats in payments system design. Throughout our workshops, participants continuously ranked security as the number one priority in the design of payment systems. At the end of the final workshop, participants were asked to prioritise design factors for a future payments system. They were given 17 votes to distribute as they thought best across the six factors of: Security, Protection, Control, Ease & Convenience, Choice [17], and Low Cost.

As the tables below illustrate, there was strong consistency in how priorities were ranked, with both groups putting security as their highest priority, followed by protection.

Table 4: Participants’ priorities in payments system design at the end of the public dialogue

This aligns with other consumer research on payments and fraud. The PSR has regularly found that consumers rank security and protections as the most important things for higher value purchases. Additionally, our Consumer Insight Tracker shows that, consistently, over 60% of UK adults are worried about being targeted by scammers. 

“The fraudsters and the hackers seem to be getting quicker at working out ways around the ‘mine’. I know that banks and everybody obviously don't want to lose money, but the fraudsters seem to be very quick at sort of circumnavigating stuff nowadays. So that's always my worry.” Participant, Bristol, W3

This is a key area of agreement between consumers and the industry. The National Payments Vision has security as one of its three key pillars to guide future activity, describing the actions it proposes as aiming “to strengthen the foundations of today’s ecosystem and steer future activity to drive innovation, facilitate competition and ensure security.” Key security measures explicitly mentioned include enhancing resilience against fraud through collaboration, data sharing, and the shift to outcome-based regulation. 

Managing the risk of fraud is critical to consumers feeling in control

There are a number of reasons why consumers remain hugely concerned about payment fraud, despite the high likelihood of them receiving their money back. This became apparent in participants’ conversations about contactless payment limits. 

During the course of our interactions with research participants, the FCA announced that it planned to remove existing contactless limits and give card providers the flexibility to set them. This generated considerable media attention [18] with several outlets highlighting that contactless card payments could become unlimited. Several research participants raised this proposal unprompted, and many were rather concerned, with some voicing outright opposition to the proposal. For those that discussed this potential change, many were opposed to it, describing it as ‘very, very dangerous’. The fear of removing or increasing the limit came from both a fear of theft but also a fear that, removing a useful payment limiter, could lead to overspending.

“I'm really concerned about the contactless limit increasing from £100 because I think that would impact quite a lot of people, especially those, you know, that have got maybe limited money in the banks.” Participant, Bradford, W2

Separate Which? research in May 2025 found that the vast majority of card users thought that the contactless limit of £100 was either about right and shouldn’t be changed or already too high (85%). The top reason for these opinions was that it helps reduce the risk of fraud if someone steals or finds my card, cited by 63% of those people [19]. 

Our research participants were informed in the public dialogue that money fraudulently taken via unauthorised transactions using their contactless card would be refunded under almost all scenarios. Knowledge of being refunded did not seem to prompt a change in participants' concern about being defrauded. They had a visceral reaction to the idea of the act of being defrauded, and asserted they would much rather not go through what they regard as a traumatic event.

This highlights how consumers don’t want to have to rely on redress. Participants talked about people either being unaware of their rights to redress or the process for reclaiming money stolen from them being distressing. 

“My heart actually breaks to think of all the people that wouldn't even try and get their money back, like all the really vulnerable older people that would get targeted, that wouldn't have a foggiest what protection was available to them.” Participant, Bristol, W2

Participants are also worried about being a victim of fraud due to the non-financial harm they can experience. Our consumer research in 2022, prior to the introduction of the mandatory APP reimbursement scheme, showed the psychological harm of being a victim can be hugely damaging, as victims told us they felt ashamed, angry or betrayed. Being a scam victim is associated with lower levels of happiness and life satisfaction, and greater anxiety. In 2021, Which? estimated the harm from lost wellbeing attributable to scams amounts to £9.3 billion a year.

Finally, participants seemingly continued to prioritise security due to an instinctive negative reaction to the idea of fraudsters spending their money. This feeling of unfairness and resentment is extremely strong, coming both from a place of understanding that we collectively as a society end up paying for fraud through system costs for reimbursement, and that it is fundamentally wrong that fraudsters are able to get away with their crimes. For this reason, participants said they remain cognisant of their responsibility to ensure their payments are going to the right places. 

“The consumer, like you as a person, has a lot of responsibility as well because there's always going to be scammers and thieves etc. It's like locking your door at night. You have to be careful.” Participant, Bradford, W2

Each of these areas of concern about security come back to the central desire of consumers to be in control. Consumers recognise that they themselves have a role to play in keeping themselves safe but that there is a limit on what they can realistically be expected to do to protect themselves in the face of increasingly sophisticated and convincing scams.

The consumer perspective on security features today

Participants valued the effort banks and payment providers are putting in to tackle fraud. They were impressed and reassured when hearing how much banks spend on security measures and the deployment of features such as the behavioural biometric tracking they conduct to spot fraud which can detect inconsistencies in the position of your phone in your hand. 

“I was really impressed by just how thorough they were to make sure that they knew I knew that I wasn't being scammed.” Participant, Bradford, W2

In addition to the behind the scenes security systems banks have in place, participants are generally accepting and reassured by the visible security measures like two-factor authentication and confirmation of payee they have, even if they can be a nuisance at times.

“And then if you've got details and it doesn't match for whatever reason, and you don't know why it's not matching, it doesn't… you know… it’s warning you about scams, which is really good.” Participant, Bradford, W1

“I think if it's over a certain amount, two factor authentication is good.” Participant, Bradford, W1.

Before our second workshop we asked participants if they felt payments are more or less secure now compared to ten years ago. While some participants felt they were less secure now due to risks like scammers using AI, card cloning, scammers faking biometrics, the risk of social media scams and contactless fraud, there were slightly more participants who thought payments are more secure today than a decade ago. Reasons for this included measures such as account payment verification, biometric log ins, greater public awareness of scams and transaction visibility (eg being able to view transactions instantly online / in app rather than having to wait for the delivery of a monthly paper statement). It is an impressive feat that, despite fraud now being the most common crime in the UK, our participants feel more secure today, compared to 10 years ago.

3.2: A desire for innovation in security

Participants are aware that expectations around high levels of security, alongside maximising ease of use, may be unrealistic for a future payments system, but they are hopeful that technology and AI can help achieve this. When thinking of innovation in the payments system, innovation in security is one of participants’ highest priority. 

“We want things to be easy, and we want them to be secure. And the two things don't necessarily go hand in hand.” Participant, Bradford, W3

Removing anachronisms

Despite being relatively supportive of the security features in payments today, most participants could recall situations or features that either frustrate them, make them feel less secure or less in control. Annoyances, such as not being able to recall complex passwords and being shut out of an account, or having to wait to receive new PINs or passcodes in the post, are seen as anachronisms by participants. These anachronisms can make them feel less secure, and as a product of that, less in control of their money. They feel that technology such as biometrics should be able to resolve these. 

“I think security is a weakness. Sometimes it's too much. Like the amount of times that I've forgotten what I've set a memorable word as. Or if it's come up on my phone to set a password and I've accidentally clicked to use complex password, there's no chance I'm going to be able to type that in on my laptop if my phone's died or if I've lost that phone and I'm trying to get back into it. Even for yourself, it's okay making it hard to get into but sometimes it's too hard.” Participant, Bradford, W4

Greater personal choice on security

Several research participants said they would welcome some flexibility in determining how and when security is applied to their payments. For example, some participants want to see a system that could monitor their spending habits and allow security features to be turned off for transactions that are regular and low cost, with higher security applied for anything large or new. 

“Surely it would be pretty simple to allow people to choose at what level you're going to require that for your account. Like, don't ask me for two-factor authentication if I'm buying a coffee. I've obviously made the decision to buy a coffee, but maybe I'm sending £40 to a friend or something.” Participant, Bristol, W4

Several participants stressed their frustration with instances when payment security measures hindered their purchases, most particularly when trying to buy high demand concert tickets, such as for Oasis' high profile reunion concerts. Having to wait for and enter a one time passcode sometimes meant they lost the tickets. They want the ability to turn them off and on for specific purchases. 

“I just hate doing the OTPs. Okay. I just don't like doing them at all. I think there should be apps and stuff where you can disable it. If you know you're going to do a big purchase or something, you can just disable it beforehand. It gives you an hour window where it just doesn't work. You know, like concert tickets and stuff. It gives it a lot more convenience.” Participant, Bradford, W4

“Obviously the verification makes it more secure, but I completely get when you're buying tickets for gigs or whatever, the option to be able to turn it off. Because what's the likelihood of a fraudster using it in that ten minutes you're using it? So just to be able to turn it off on occasion.” Participant, Bradford, W4

Despite this wish for fewer visible security measures, participants did not want to see their level of protection lowered as a result. On the other hand, some participants are much more risk adverse and would like the option to be able to ‘turn up’ their security features.

“I'd like to see what's happening. I think I would say I feel more secure knowing what's happening. It might be easier and quicker to let [banks] worry about it, but I would prefer to see it.” Participant, Bristol, W1

3.3: Sharing responsibility for security with other actors that have a key role to play

Although our research focused on payments and inevitably discussion revolved around the need for the payments framework to ensure security, the research participants gave a very strong and unequivocal steer that they expect other actors to play their part in delivering security and countering fraud, and in enabling them to feel more in control. In particular, consumers highlighted the important role that social media platforms, online marketplaces and online search engines have to play. They felt strongly that these large firms should be held responsible for countering fraud and ensuring security on their sites.

“That's my question, are they going to legislate for the social media platforms? Because as far as I'm concerned, that's the priority at the moment, is to close that loop.” Participant, Bristol, W3

“They do get away with murder, don't they? Because they say they're just a platform. And if people do naughty things on their platform, it's not their responsibility.” Participant, Bradford, W3

Some participants hope that in the future banks and payment providers could issue a form of verification or stamp of approval that would help consumers to identify trusted sellers. 

Chapter 4: Purchase protections

In the previous chapter we saw that participants in our research value the obligations on payment system providers that help protect their payments from authorised and unauthorised payment fraud. Additionally, they view fraud prevention as a shared endeavour with responsibility shared between themselves, the government, banks, payment providers and other actors such as social media platforms. There is much greater variance in opinions when it comes to the payment purchase protections consumers have when something goes wrong with a good or service they purchase. 

4.1: Protection gaps today

In our second online workshop the Deputy Editor of Which? Money magazine presented to participants the hierarchy of protections they have when things go wrong with purchases. He explained participants’ rights as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. They also discussed enhanced protections, such as extended warranties that some retailers or manufacturers offer. Finally, he covered the payment purchase protections which apply if the retailer or service provider consumers have purchased from is not being compliant or has gone bust. 

Most participants said they were not aware of the specific payment purchase protections that cover different types of payments and that the manner in which payments are made (eg through a third party provider) can impact whether they have payment purchase protections or not. This is consistent with prior consumer research. 

One of the main criticisms of payment purchase protections today were the differences across payment types. Firstly, participants viewed differences as confusing and creating barriers to engagement, such as the abundance of jargon and challenging administrative hoops.

“I used quite a lot of different payment options. It wasn't until I started this research that I realised that the protection is so different depending on what you use. Now I don't feel protected with a lot of purchases that I've made.” Participant, Bradford, W4

Many participants also saw payment purchase protections as most accessible to consumers who can afford to pay in a certain way, specifically using a credit card. They highlighted this as an accessibility and poverty premium issue, meaning that the more vulnerable in society (including those without a fixed address or good credit score) have less of a chance of getting their money back compared to those better off. 

“That's like payment premiums, right? If you don't have a good credit score, and therefore you can't get a credit card, then you are currently kind of excluded from receiving some protections because you can't get a credit card. So is that fair?” Participant, Bristol, W4

Despite these barriers to engagement and criticisms of the systems in place today, participants value these protections and feel they should be in place to protect consumers as a last line of defence if they face issues. However, there was divergence in thought on what approach should be prioritised in the future. 

4.2: The merits of different approaches to payment purchase protections

Consistency across payment types

One participant supported consistent protection across payment types because they correlate this with trust and confidence in the wider payments system and economy, which in turn benefits society as a whole. 

“The minute you lose confidence in a payment type you begin to lose confidence in the whole system and losing confidence in how we handle money or cash. My view is you can’t pick and choose. You have to protect payments across the board so that people feel confident.” Participant, Bristol, W2 

Other participants favoured consistent, simplified protections because of how this makes them easier to understand, thus not excluding individuals due to lower levels of financial literacy. 

“I think if everyone did it the same way it'd make it easier for people to be able to claim. I think there's a responsibility to make it as simple as possible and standardise it.” Participant, Bristol, W3

Crucially, these participants who wanted consistency were not calling for all payment types to have the same level of protections as credit cards today. Instead, they want to avoid situations where they make payments that come with no payment protections. The lack of payment purchase protections which currently apply to ‘Pay by Bank’ concerned these participants. 

“There's some small companies which I've used to buy my mum some equipment, but it's that account-to-account payment, and that's all they offer. But I wouldn't have bought that equipment, so I think it could easily break, but it costs quite a lot. I had no idea that potentially I wouldn’t be protected. I don't think there's a lot of knowledge as well, unless you kind of look for it yourself.” Participant, Bradford, W4

A varied approach, with greater protections for riskier transactions

Other participants saw more advantages in having varied levels of protection across different payments/purchase types. Amongst these participants, some see less of a need for protection when you are paying local providers, such as local authorities. Many also support smaller, everyday payments being less protected (eg takeaway coffee, train tickets), especially when you receive the goods immediately in person. 

“Whereas if you do buy a coffee, once you get your coffee, you're happy aren't you? So there's surely less that can go wrong in person because you actually receive it there and then.” Participant, Bristol, W4

The ability to actually go and speak to someone about a purchase bought in person led to several participants thinking that lower protections would be needed in this instance. Many participants feel it is important to have higher protections for online purchases. One reason for this is the fact that a consumer has no way of guaranteeing the item or product is real or without flaw because they have not seen it in person. Another reason is the abundance of false advertisements online, and how AI is making it increasingly easy to doctor images in a deceivingly realistic way.  

“Online you can't see what you're getting until you get it. Until you've paid for it, whereas if you're buying something for furniture, they'll usually let you at least sit on it.” Participant, Bradford, W4

Additionally, some participants are particularly concerned by the risk associated with purchases made via social media or online marketplaces where the buyer is more distant from the seller, making it harder to get redress from traditional means when the seller is not playing ball. Many participants talked about the growth of these e-commerce platforms and see an urgent need for protections to adapt to modern day consumer habits, specifically buying through social media or online marketplaces. Recent Which? research found that 90% of consumers have made purchases on platforms like eBay, Amazon Marketplace, Etsy, and AliExpress within the last two years, and that 24 million consumers are regular users [22]. The research estimated that at least 8.8 million consumers have experienced harm from faulty, unsafe, or fraudulent products bought from these sites in the last two years [23]. This harm is only likely to rise as the social commerce market grows, with Retail Economics estimating that the sector will double in size over the next four years, from £7.3 billion today, to £15.7 billion in 2028.

One of the specific issues consumers have with payment protections is the apparent discrepancy in Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974 protection when purchasing an item from an agent for the actual supplier, for example buying off Amazon Marketplace, rather than directly with Amazon. In this circumstance, Section 75 may not apply and claims against the credit card provider may be unsuccessful. One participant said that a consumer would need to “forensically dive into” the seller's information to determine whether a purchase was made via marketplace or not. 

“So, if you go online to Amazon, it actually has quite a strong kind of refund policy because… they're kind of a legit company. They have a reputation. Where things get a little bit murkier is if you go on something like Amazon Marketplace, where you might not get all the protections because you're buying through a third party, but Amazon's just like the shop front, rather than Amazon itself.” Participant, Bradford, W2

Even experts can struggle to apply this very old legislation to modern payments, let alone shoppers. A recent Which? article highlighted the discrepancies in how different organisations can interpret the rules, and how this situation has become a confusing mess that needs to be fairly and properly resolved. Aiming to do this, the government is currently conducting a review of the CCA to modernise the regime which ensures consumers are provided with clear information at the right time enabling them to make informed financial decisions, as well as ensuring robust consumer protections are maintained. A guiding principle for this review should be that payment purchase protections need to keep pace with the changing nature of consumer shopping habits to ensure that consumers have a sense of control over their shopping experiences.

When talking about the need for greater protections for riskier transactions, some participants discussed the concept of paying for additional payment protections. During the workshops some compared this to the concept of insurance, with an individual choosing how much risk they are willing to accept or mitigate against. As a result, some participants suggested a future model where an individual can choose to pay more or less for more or less protection. 

“I think having a bit of a mixture really, because if there are people who just want things to be done for them and chosen for them. If there were a variable fee where you could choose your fee, depending on how much protection you wanted, there could just be a default like basically what we have now, which most people would just pay. And then for the people who care, they could then choose.” Participant, Bristol, W4

In these conversations participants referenced examples of payment protection schemes offered by firms including Vinted and PayPal, highlighting how they liked the visible guarantee of protections. One participant who particularly liked the Vinted system because they could see the amount going to their protections expressed an interest in this being more widely adopted in the future and a willingness to pay directly for additional protection.

4.3: A future-facing protections landscape: The potential for conditionality and reversibility

Participants were interested in alternative or innovative ways to deliver payment protections, including conditionality (eg where a payment is made only after specific, pre-agreed conditions have been met such as an item being delivered) and reversibility (eg where payment can be cancelled, allowing funds to be returned to the payer, if goods have not been received or are not as described).

Conditionality was explored in our third workshop on innovations. It was presented through the lens of creating better recurring payments, but we also talked about its applicability to the retail space where consumers would only pay for a product or service when they confirmed they’ve received it and it is in good order, as is the case with Vinted and other online sites. Participants spoke about how Tesco has updated its payment processes so that you only pay for a grocery item when it's actually been received rather than when you order it, a closer reflection of the in-store experience that avoids the need to claim a refund. 

“I know now they've changed it with Tesco, when you buy something on, you buy it, you shop it, and then they don't take it out until you've received it, which I thought is a really good idea.” Participant, Bradford, W4

Some participants like the prospect of this for giving more power to the consumer and mitigating against the long drawn out hassle of trying to get a refund for a poor product or service. 

“You get a situation, you've already paid for that, and then you've got the hassle of trying to get that back. Now, if you had that delayed payment until after, say, you signed off for that boiler, and everything was working, and then you just clicked a button and said, yeah, that's fine, take that money. That, to me, would be a better system than it is at the moment.” Participant, Bradford, W3

However, participants also questioned how the application of conditionality would work to ensure that it is not open to abuse, which could affect businesses, particularly small businesses, with customers wrongly claiming an item hadn’t been received, jeopardising their cashflow. 

“I think it's great not paying for a service until it's finished, not paying for a parcel until it's arrived, but it'll be interesting to find out who has to agree for that [payment] to be allowed. I can't imagine companies and all the tradesmen necessarily being too happy with that, so it'll be interesting to see where the power lies.” Participant, Bradford, W3

“When it comes to the conditionality, it feels really open to abuse. I was thinking - all these delivery companies where parcels go missing, as soon as that tracking number goes on and someone says it's delivered and it goes to a neighbour and then the payment goes, well, at what point then do you get to challenge it? It felt like I don't know how I couldn't actually work with that new style.” Participant, Bradford W2

Despite these concerns, most participants were very intrigued by the potential for conditional payments and would like to see further development in this space to speed up, or even bypass, the need for long refund processes and to better protect their money from fraudsters.

The concept of reversibility was not part of the design of our research process but came up naturally during conversations about fraud and protections. Participants questioned why it is not easier to catch scammers and fraudsters and reclaim money lost to them. 

“I think we've heard over tonight and last week that payments are quick to go one way, but they're not quick to recover. So if the system was made so that we could recover them quickly, then it wouldn't negate scams, but you could sort them pretty quickly. If you'd clicked on an advert and paid for something that as soon as that became a scam, you could recover that money.” Participant, Bristol, W2

Chapter 5: Choice

When thinking about the importance of having a choice between different payment options, participants often reflected through two different lenses: their individual preferences and what would be better for society. Whilst many participants are satisfied with the amount of choice built into today’s payments system, they felt that greater choice could deliver wider benefits in the shape of increased competition and result in payments being more accessible and inclusive.  

5.1: Consumers don’t see an overarching need for greater choice in their payment options

Greater choice in payment options in the future was a ‘future design scenario’ [24] that we explored with participants. This scenario painted a future world with a wide range of payment methods that offer different strengths depending on the type of payment and context. Although participants were not fully adverse to more options in payments, they questioned whether more choices in payment options are needed. 

A lot of participants’ conversations during the dialogue revolved around the value-added services or applications that banks or payments firms develop which operate on top of the underlying payment infrastructure. This is understandable since these are the tools they may use in their daily lives or have heard about. There was considerable unprompted interest in the specific tools offered by one bank - Monzo - which support people managing their money (covered in Chapter 2). This is an area where participants welcomed the expansion of choice offered to them over the last 10 years. However, this did not extend to a desire for more choice in the future, be it more banks or new payment providers providing new methods to make payments. Participants are concerned about how increased choice could bring complexity, resulting in a lack of control over their payments, leaving them struggling to know the best way to pay or not having clear visibility of all their payments.

“It also might have the effect for some people, where it's spread out and there's a chance and possibility for things like people to get into debt and that sort of stuff.” Participant, Bristol, W4

“Especially if it's like saying that the digital wallet is suggesting, so you can go and do your food shop and it's suggesting that you pay by debit card, but then you go next door to Argos and buy a new Wi-Fi, it's then suggesting you use your credit card. And you're like, OK, let's pay by credit card, but then you potentially would forget, because, you know, and then all of a sudden you're like, oh my God, my credit card bill has come in, I don't remember, oh yeah, I took the suggestion.” Participant, Bristol, W4

Participants also fear being confronted by a bewildering range of options at checkout that can result in them making uninformed decisions. They are also concerned that complexity risks excluding certain groups, including those with lower financial literacy, neurodivergence or who are time poor. They emphasise that future focus must be on including those at highest risk of exclusion. 

Looking to the future, there is some support for the inclusion of an AI feature that could help a consumer choose which payment method to use. For several participants, this would be essential in helping them manage the element of choice amidst their busy lifestyle. They want the benefits of competition and lower prices that could come with increased choices, but do not have the time to work out which is best suited for each payment situation.

“Sometimes it's like being given the options with some extra info to back it up and then you can make your decision. Or you can just go with the suggested decision if you can't bother to think for yourself at the moment.” Participant, Bristol, W4

There is, however, some scepticism and resistance among participants to the idea of AI assistance helping them navigate a plethora of choices. There is concern amongst participants that the nature of AI could lead to its recommendations being leading or biased towards a particular option, ultimately benefitting the provider more than the consumer. Several participants said that their trust in AI is so low they would not want any of its technology anywhere near something so important as their personal finances. 

“AI hallucinates. I've said it before. I don't want it anywhere near my money. It is astonishingly just really bad. I don't want it anywhere near anything important.” Participant, Bristol, W4

The benefits of increased competition

Despite not seeing a personal need for greater choice, many participants are drawn to the suggestion that increased choice would result in increased competition between payment providers. Participants spoke about how choice serves to redistribute some of the power within the payments system, transferring it from those few payment providers with significant market power to consumers. 

“It’s this idea that if you have a limited choice, that gives more power to those companies or organisations or whatever. If there's lots of choice, that gives people in society more power.” Participant, Bradford, W4

They emphasised that because of the longstanding duopoly of Visa and Mastercard, any new options would need to be carefully marketed and clearly explained to consumers. Many participants think that the majority of consumers will not actively seek alternatives to these existing providers so it will be difficult for any new players to break through the market. New players would have to provide a service that consumers can clearly see the benefits of, for it to have widespread adoption. In the context of an increasing risk of digital security threats, new players will also need to clearly present their security features in order to attract users. Participants believe that it will take time to build trust between consumers and new providers. 

“I'd be happy with Visa or Mastercard because [they’ve] been around for a while and I know what they're doing.” Participant, Bradford, W3

“I was going to say, would you really trust something that has no Visa or Mastercard on it?” Participant, Bristol, W4

“If you're a new payment provider or a new payment option that sits at the bottom of your payment page when you're buying something…in your first year of existence, there has to be, like, a pop-up or an easy thing that says, hey, I'm new, here's how I work.” Participant, Bristol, W4

5.2: Greater choice could extend access to people who are currently excluded

Choice was repeatedly highlighted by participants as an important foundation for an accessible digital payments system, one that can accommodate diverse needs that may change over time. Some participants see this as particularly important when it comes to buying essential goods. They see it as a valuable way of ensuring vulnerable individuals are able to get what they need without being forced into financial situations that only increase their vulnerability, such as using a payment method they are not comfortable with or entering into an overdraft or taking out a loan.  

“You have to make it possible to pay however you need. So if you're going shopping and you need to buy nappies, if all you've got is cash, you should be able to pay with cash. That should be more than my opinion. For things like buying coffee, that's fair enough if the shop wants to ban cash, but for the bare essentials you should be protected, however you want to pay.” Participant, Bristol, W4

Participants’ main priority is a payments system which incorporates choice that genuinely benefits everyone and reduces financial vulnerability. They envision a system where increased flexibility enhances accessibility, competition and control, which in turn empowers individuals. However, they often returned to their concern that greater choice can also introduce complexity and risk, especially for those with lower financial literacy. As such, participants see value in carefully designed tools that help consumers navigate choices responsibly, without eroding autonomy or trust.

Chapter 6: Resilience

6.1: Greater choice can increase the resilience of the payments ecosystem

As we saw in the preceding chapter, research participants didn’t see an overarching need for greater choice in the payment options available to them individually but they recognised that more choice could help to deliver wider benefits. In fact, participants saw one of the key benefits of greater choice being that it can increase the resilience of the whole payments ecosystem. They feel that always having back up options is crucial in a world of cybersecurity threats, which were front of mind for participants (see Chapter 1). 

“Backup options, like we were talking about. If the system suffers technical issues, you've got those.” Participant, Bradford, W4

The importance of personal resilience

In payments, resilience is usually considered at the system level but our research participants also talked about resilience from a very individual perspective. They highlighted that innovations in digital payments in recent years had increased the convenience of payments, but it had also ushered in new risks for them to cope with, which they sometimes felt ill-equipped to deal with. 

A very clear example of this which was raised, unprompted, on multiple occasions was the risk which arises for consumers when using a digital wallet on a smartphone to make payments but the smartphone runs out of battery. This is increasingly problematic as fewer people choose to carry cards in their physical wallets. Recent research by LINK found that fewer than half of UK adults consider a wallet or purse as essential for their day-to-day routine and thus don’t always leave the home with one (48%). Consumers were extremely fearful of a future where cash is not widely accepted and finding themselves in a situation where their smartphone is out of battery, meaning they have no way to pay.

“One of my worst fears is, and I know it sounds a bit silly, but going on a night out, being on my own, needing to get home afterwards like say something doesn't work and I'm like stuck out in the middle of the night in the dark by myself with no way to get home because like I don't have a way to pay for it. So it's important to always have something.” Participant, Bristol, W4

While they said they need to take personal responsibility for ensuring a smartphone is sufficiently charged, or to carry some form of payment back-up (eg physical card or small amount of cash), there are always occasions when we as humans get caught out. In such circumstances, consumers would welcome innovative payment solutions which could imbue them with personal resilience and give them the ability to make payments. They were sceptical though that resilience can be delivered and meet their individual need for control through purely digital means.

Cash is primarily seen as a resilient payment option

Participants view cash as a key vehicle for both personal resilience and for system level resilience. When initially asked for suggestions on what could make a digital payments system more resilient, several participants spoke about the importance of cash, as the most readily available non-digital form of money. The tangibility of cash makes participants feel more in control and therefore resilient to larger scale digital events that are outside of their control. They feel strongly that a society without cash in circulation leaves the majority of the population very vulnerable to malicious hacking events or system downtime. 

“But one thing I do like about [cash] is that you can just sort of keep it in your back pocket and it's something that you can kind of rely on in a way. And if your phone dies or something, then you can't use Apple Pay, that kind of thing, whereas [cash] you can kind of rely on it a little bit more.” Participant, Bristol, W1

Looking to cash as the primary means to deliver resilience was not confined to those who use it to pay for things in their everyday lives. Rather, even those participants who rarely use cash to make payments viewed it as essential as a backup payment method. This is a rational and well-documented response. Bank of England research has shown a continued rise in the value of Notes in Circulation (NIC) which appears at odds with falling transactional cash use but shows that cash is increasingly being used as a store of value [25].

6.2: ‘Digital resilience’ feels oxymoronic to consumers

Participants are concerned that an outage in a purely digital payments system would cause day-to-day life to grind to a halt. To many participants, the phrase ‘digital resilience’ feels oxymoronic in the context of recent hacks and payment outages caused by individual bank failures [26] or more widespread systemic failures, such as the massive, widespread electricity blackout that struck Spain and Portugal in April 2025. Across both the Bristol and Bradford groups, the general feeling is that whilst it is important to be prepared for hacks and outages, our data and payment systems are always at some risk due to their digital nature. 

“I don't think with digital payment it can 100% work all the time. I genuinely don't think that that would be possible, because…it's digital.” Participant, Bristol, W4 

Additionally, participants are concerned that solutions like the Digital Pound - explored in our third workshop on innovations - still exclude those without mobile phones from being able to benefit from a more resilient payments system, subject to design choices. Digital poverty and digital exclusion were considered carefully by participants from both locations throughout the dialogue. They worry that phasing out cash, and the digital nature of all alternatives means the persistent risk of excluding individuals who cannot afford or use a phone, tablet, laptop etc. 

Some participants are concerned about a Digital Pound due to a feeling of distrust or lack of confidence in the central government. They are concerned about the privacy of their payments, with a few participants fearing it would enable the government to track an individual’s day-to-day transactions. 

“I think people are deeply suspicious of the government and of anything being imposed on them, whether it is being imposed or they just feel it's being imposed.” Participant, Bristol, W3 

“I don't think we're in some totalitarian state, but you can see that people will be worried about that. People are already worried about the digital pound and such like, and it gets very serious with people like that. I mean, but you can see how that sort of conversation can gain traction unless it's properly presented as being enabling rather than the government controlling.” Participant, Bristol, W3

Despite some distrust in the central government, many participants see a role for the government in ensuring that our payments system is resilient, guaranteeing both consumer and business access to essential payments services.

“I think the government is sort of at the heart of all of this because they regulate everything and they police everything.. [There is] so much to account for; as in for the businesses and for the consumers.” Participant, Bristol, W2

6.3: Consumer openness to some digital resilience solutions

Despite being sceptical that resilience can be purely delivered through digital means, participants are actively open to both current and future solutions developed by industry to address challenges which can be experienced when making digital payments.

Participants are extremely interested in the idea that the Digital Pound or other future payment innovations could work without the need for internet connection or phone signal, or again when your phone has run out of battery. This is where many participants see the most scope for the benefits of cash to be transferable to a digital form, improving people’s individual resilience. 

Several participants supported the introduction of a digital payment technology similar to that used by M-PESA, such as SMS technology to facilitate transactions or technology that would keep working without the internet or if apps fail. They are particularly optimistic that this could increase the resilience of payment systems in rural areas, or areas where problematic gaps in internet connection exist. 

“Building on the point made about the Kenyan system and being able to use the payment where you don't have an internet connection in more rural areas. I think that's really useful because I have travelled quite a bit and some areas it's really difficult to get your bank login to the app and things that you can't always do it and so it would be really useful to have a system that can be used where there is no Wi-Fi or signal available both in this country and abroad.” Participant, Bradford, W2

“It would be handy to have the SMS system they've got and a digital wallet or something, because that would work on your phone signal rather than data signal. So that would be quite a good backup. You know when you don't have [much] signal, but you can still call 999?” Participant, Bristol, W2

“I'm sure everyone on the call has probably experienced that Bristol is horrendous for internet, particularly once you've got all the schools and all the students come back, because there's no bandwidth. I've had it over so many different networks. You just can't get a signal in town. So if you can pay via SMS, that would be a game changer for a lot of shops.” Participant, Bristol, W3

Chapter 7: Summary and Recommendations

At the start of this report, we observed that we currently stand at a critical juncture in the development of UK payments. The way we pay is rapidly changing due to technological innovations, meanwhile our payments infrastructure needs an urgent upgrade. Recognising this ‘inflection point’, and the consequent need for action, the UK government has taken a series of important steps over the last year. Although good initial progress has been made in plotting the future course of UK payments, there remains a huge amount to do.

From our perspective, one glaring omission in this activity to date is information about how consumer needs will be genuinely "baked in" to what is proposed and implemented. It’s imperative that what consumers want and need from payments is reflected in what is developed, and to deliver on the assertion made that the Strategy “has been developed with the needs of users, including those of end users, at its core.”

To inform this critical discussion, our research project sought to understand what is most important in making future payments work for consumers. The core message is clear: amid cost of living pressures, rising fraud, and high-profile security breaches, consumers need payments to help them stay in control of their money. Based on the detailed discussions we held with research participants over the course of our payments dialogue, we make recommendations focused at two distinct levels to meet this need:

1. Learnings to ensure that the consumer interest is embedded in the development of future payments both now and on an ongoing basis; and
2. Immediate improvements consumers want to see to their payments.

7.1: Learnings to ensure that the consumer interest is embedded in the development of future payments both now and on an ongoing basis

Based on the detailed discussions and insights from the payments dialogue, we make three strategic recommendations to ensure that the consumer interest is embedded in the development of future payments both now and on an ongoing basis:

1. for the government to play a central role in setting the future development of payments; 
2. for mechanisms to be put in place to enable meaningful public involvement in these discussions; and
3. for the establishment of mechanisms to increase the ambition of standards / schemes over time.

Consumers expect government to play a central role in steering the future development of payments

In the previous chapter on resilience, we saw how some participants see a central role for the government in guaranteeing essential payments infrastructure is in place and functioning.

A central role for government

In discussions on resilience and innovation, participants had both a pragmatic understanding of the limitations of digital resilience today but a clear desire to enhance it in the future. This is where many want the government to play a central role in payments. In this context, the concept of a Digital Pound sparks curiosity but also scepticism, and participants recommend considerable investment is allocated towards further public engagement in the specifics of this idea to inform its development. 

The NPV and the associated PVDC Strategy herald more involvement from government and the regulators in setting the strategic direction for payments innovations, and defining public policy challenges to be addressed (eg to tackle fraud, to address digital payments exclusion and to ensure appropriate payment purchase protections apply). This is welcome and aligns with consumer expectations. 

Meaningful public involvement in changes to the payments system

It is always gratifying and sometimes striking when, as researchers, participants come up to you at the end of a process and say how surprised they were to have so enjoyed taking part (some admitted to fearing payments might be quite a ‘dry’ topic). Many said they found the discussions so useful for their own lives and how they felt the reward of contributing to a discussion that is important for society. 

From workshop to workshop, it was clear to see how participants’ confidence in engaging with the topic grew. They moved from focusing on their own personal experiences and knowledge, to listening to and reflecting on each other’s experiences, such as the payment changes experienced during the COVID pandemic and helping older parents and grandparents adjust to new technologies.

Participants were also extremely realistic and pragmatic in their discussions about the priorities for future innovations. They often acted as their own facilitators, coming up with solutions to certain design issues but then discussing potential drawbacks of that solution to other elements of the payments system. They were very cognisant that sometimes their individual needs are in conflict with those of others and could create issues or higher costs for small businesses. As the workshops went on, they demonstrated a strong ability to think through a systems design perspective, bringing in both their personal preferences and what they thought would work best for society and the payments industry as a whole. 

At the end of the research, several participants stated in their message to government that they hoped to see greater public involvement in the design of a future payments system – to ensure changes are in line with their needs and their values. 

Message to government by a group in Bristol at the end of the public dialogue

Historically, there has been limited consumer involvement in the development of new payments initiatives. This has meant that what has been introduced has been driven by the interests of industry, and has often failed to meet consumer needs. 

Since consumers are the ultimate users and beneficiaries of payment systems, and rely on them in many aspects of their daily life, it’s unsurprising that they want their voice to be heard in discussions about the future of payments. Our research showed that not only are consumers genuinely interested in contributing to this dialogue but that they are able to quickly grasp complex topics, assess trade-offs and conflicts, understand the different drivers which motivate actors in the payments ecosystem, and suggest pragmatic and realistic ways forward. For example, they are receptive to innovations, such as conditional and reversible payments that promise greater control.

Involving consumer organisations in the development of new payments initiatives is welcome, and represents a practical way to elicit the consumer viewpoint. However, for discussions which relate to issues of fundamental importance such as the renewal of the payments system on which we all rely, this should be supplemented with an obligation to engage with a cross section of consumers as a mandatory and integral part of the policy and design process.

Ensuring there are mechanisms to increase the ambition of standards / schemes over time

As a consumer organisation, we want to see consumers benefit from the immediate improvements outlined above, and for the consumer interest to be embedded in the development of future payments both now and on an ongoing basis. 

We are not wedded to how they are achieved - whether they are best delivered at the infrastructure layer, in the associated scheme rules or via the development of overlays, or by individual firms offering innovative products to their customers. Provided that improvements are delivered to consumers, we are willing to endorse an approach that works, that maximises efficiency and minimises costs. 

What is important to us is that the introduction of improvements is not confined to a single point in time, after which they remain forever unaltered. In the past we have seen payments infrastructure remain almost wholly untouched for decades (eg Direct Debits have remained largely unchanged since the 1970s). HM Treasury has previously acknowledged that the network nature of payment systems means they may not be responsive to service-user needs and wishes. This needs to change. To ensure the payments system retains a sense of dynamism and remains responsive to consumer needs and preferences, the PVDC must ensure there are regular reviews of the current state of UK payments. Mechanisms should be put in place to increase the ambition of standards / schemes / overlays over time, in line with changes in consumer expectations and technological developments. Given the fast changing nature of payments, an annual assessment appears reasonable.

This regular review would remove the need to build an all-encompassing payments infrastructure from Day 1, which would be costly, difficult, struggle to anticipate future needs, and soon become out of date. It would also be aligned with the proposed “modular development and seamless integration of value-adding overlay services” advocated in the PVDC strategy.

7.2: Immediate improvements consumers want to see

Through conducting this public dialogue, this research identified a number of immediate, practical improvements consumers want to see in payments that will give them greater control. These should be actively explored by the Retail Payments Infrastructure Board (RPIB) and Delivery Company under the innovative new model to deliver the next generation of UK retail payments infrastructure. Further consumer engagement will be required in each of these areas to ensure their design meets end-user needs. The issues are highlighted throughout this report and are repeated below.

Table 5: Immediate improvements consumers want to see in payments

Annex

Footnotes

[1] The FCA has a consumer protection objective which is: securing an appropriate degree of protection for consumers. See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/8/part/1A/chapter/1/crossheading/the-fcas-general-duties ↑.

[2] The PSR has a statutory objective to ensure that payment systems are operated and developed in a way that considers and promotes the interests of all the businesses and consumers that use them. See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/33/section/52 ↑.

[3] We discuss PayM in more detail in Chapter 1 ↑.

[4] Participants were informed that the purpose of the research was to focus on the act of making payments, not the financial products attached to them (eg credit and loan products) ↑.

[5] Five participants dropped out during the course of the research, resulting in 41 participants fully completing the research process ↑.

[6] The PSR’s Consumer Research 2024-2025 research found that 95% of consumers feel that payments are working well ↑.

[7] There is not one measure of those experiencing more acute problems with payments, but with millions of cases of payment fraud every year, 1.2 million adults being digitally excluded, 0.9 million adults being unbanked, those facing issues with cash access and acceptance and user groups with unmet specific needs, millions of people in the UK face problems with their payments ↑.

[8] The Future of Payments Review, p.9, called out the process of manually entering a sort code and 8-digit account number as "clunky (relative to international comparators)” ↑.

[9] For example, Monzo offers account holders the ability to send money to other Monzo account holders and also the ability to send a payment link to anyone, including those who do not have a Monzo account, using its Monzo.me feature ↑.

[10] Eg BBC website, Guardian, Financial Times ↑.

[11] Online Poll with 2,096 UK adults. The survey took place from 5th to 6th November 2025. The data is weighted to represent the adult population of the UK by age, gender, region, social grade, working status and housing tenure ↑.

[12] At its simplest, a payment scheme allows people and businesses to move payments between each other. The legislative definition of a payment scheme can be found at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/33/section/41 ↑.

[13] The FCA's Financial Lives 2024 - Key findings from the FCA’s Financial Lives May 2024 survey (May 2025) found that "Many financial services customers stay with the same provider for long periods, especially in banking. As of May 2024, three‑fifths (61%) of day‑to‑day account holders had been with the same provider for at least a decade", while only 6% of day-to-day account holders had switched in the previous years. Meanwhile, the FCA's Strategic Review of Retail Banking Business Models ↑.

[14] Eg Broekhoff and Van Der Cruijsen (2024). Paying in a blink of an eye: it hurts less, but you spend more. Brown, M., Nacht, Y., Nellen, T. and Stix, H. (2023). Cashless payments and consumer spending. Faraz N., Anjum A. (2025). Spendception: The Psychological Impact of Digital Payments on Consumer Purchase Behavior and Impulse Buying ↑.

[15] The FCA summarised the benefits to business of removing payment friction in its proposals about contactless payments, noting "Contactless payments are quicker than payments that have to apply SCA (due to PIN entry). So enabling more contactless payments could have positive secondary impacts on growth, through smoother consumer payment journeys resulting in more sales and higher productivity". Meanwhile, Visa reports that tokenization (the technology that enables frictionless digital wallets/one-click payments) results in a 5% increase in authorization rates (ie fewer failed payments) compared to traditional transactions ↑.

[16] Request to Pay (RtP) is a secure messaging overlay that sits on top of existing payment systems and allows a biller to digitally ask a customer to pay an amount, giving the customer flexibility and control over when, how much, and which account they use to settle the payment. See: https://www.wearepay.uk/what-we-do/overlay-services/request-to-pay/ ↑.

[17] In the Bristol workshop, Choice was combined with Resilience. During the Bristol workshop, it was clear that participants' views on Resilience and Choice were different, so to better differentiate the factors, it was presented as just Choice in Bradford ↑.

[18] Eg BBC website, Mirror, Guardian ↑.

[19] Online Poll with 2,091 UK adults. The survey took place from 9th to 11th May 2025. Bases: Debit or credit card users (1,837). Debit or credit card users who think the contactless limit should be lower or stay the same (1,621) ↑.

[20] The PSR’s Policy Statement on Fighting authorised push payment fraud: A new reimbursement requirement, Annex 3: Question-by-question feedback and response to our consultation (June 2023) provides a summary of these warnings, reporting that “Many industry respondents said our proposals would lead to a rise in the likelihood of moral hazard, arguing they do not give consumers the incentives to take sufficient care when making payments.” ↑.

[21] PSR (2021) Confirmation of Payee - Call for views stated: “our data analysis demonstrates that there has been a reduction in the relevant types of APP scams sent to CoP-enabled PSPs, while APP scams sent to PSPs not participating in the service have increased.” ↑.

[22] Online Poll with 2,096 UK adults. The data is weighted to represent the adult population of the UK by age, gender, region, social grade, working status and housing tenure. The survey took place from 5th to 6th November 2025. The 24 million figure is based on 44% of UK adults buying from an online marketplace at least once a month ↑.

[23] Estimate based on one in six of those purchasing from an online marketplace in the last two years reporting an issue with their product (18%). Base sizes: Purchased from online marketplace in the last two years (1,857) ↑.

[24] See the future design scenario in the annex of this report ↑.

[25] The Bank of England reports that there was a “50% increase in the value of NIC in the UK between 2012 and 2021”, despite falling transactional cash use over the same period (cash accounted for 23% of payments in 2019, down from around 60% a decade earlier) ↑.

[26] The Treasury Committee found (March 2025) that nine of the top banks and building societies operating in the UK accumulated at least 803 hours, the equivalent of more than 33 days, of unplanned tech and systems outages in the previous two years. See https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/158/treasury-committee/news/205611/more-than-one-months-worth-of-it-failures-at-major-banks-and-building-societies-in-the-last-two-years/ ↑.

[27] See, for example, information from Swedish authorities at https://www.krisinformation.se/en/hazards-and-risks/home-preparedness/payment-during-a-crisis and from the Netherlands at https://www.dnb.nl/en/payments/cash-in-your-emergency-kit/ ↑.