The transaction page for outbound (sent) bank transfers contains a Details section which includes a “Reference” field (which displays the transaction reference) and a “Payment info” field (which displays the sort code and account number the money was sent to). This is shown below:
Please add a field containing the sort code and account number identifying the account the money came from (i.e. same structure as the payment info field for sent bank transfers, although perhaps you need to give it a different name for received bank transfers)
I was about to say I was not sure data protection rules would allow for this, however I notice Starling shows this info for some payments in and not for others.
1 Like
Anarchist
(Press ‘Help’ search ‘Contact us’ or email help@monzo.com or call 0800 802 1281)
5
Maybe they show it for accounts which are saved in your payees. [Just a guess].
Good thinking, it is that. So back to my original theory data protection would be an issue. Someone could pay you from an account they would rather you didn’t know about.
I just noticed and read through that thread after creating this one.
The other thread was originally created after account details were removed from both sent and received transfers. They now seem to have been reinstated on sent transfers but still absent from received transfers. Given the other thread was more general (for both sent and received) I don’t know if this one (focussing just on the received side) should be retained.
That argument is made in the other thread but I don’t really get it. When I receive a payment from someone not in my payees list, Monzo seems to automatically add the account to my payees list (with sort code and account number). Given it does this, why not show the info on the relevant transaction?
The regulations are an ass, is the answer I figured after reading (between the lines) on the last discussion. It can’t be an accident that Starling and Monzo used to have this behaviour and took it away around the same time.
I agree with you completely @Peter_G, and I think I said as much in the previous thread on this!
I think it was heavily implied previously that it was a GDPR thing where many (Monzo?) argued that account details constituted “personal information” which the data minimisation principle of GDPR requires to be processed in a way which is relevant, adequate, and absolutely necessary for a “legitimate purpose”.
There was then much argument about whether or not there was a legitimate purpose for revealing the data, grounded in discussion of various usage scenarios, and how the other tests of the data minimisation principle were met.
Essentially, it was decided that the test was not satisfied fully, so on balance the compromise approach was taken based on the following logic: somebody who has given you their bank details before self-evidently trusts you with that information and might reasonably expect you to retain them, and therefore the details appear in cases where you’ve sent money to people who are saved payees. If somebody hasn’t volunteered their bank details then the details don’t appear.
Or, at least, that is my reading of where we got to with the previous discussion here and inference of internal Monzo discussions. I am also very unconvinced of this, although I do see how the logic runs.
The principle is inherently subjective, and therefore difficult to apply consistently; it is also relatively new and, consequently, relatively untested. This makes for a lack of legal clarity and I believe that this is why Monzo (and Starling) have chosen to be cautious and take the approach they have. I do not believe that an actual banking regulation explicitly requires them to restrict access to this information; my personal (non-expert) reading of GDPR is also that this is an overly-cautious reading and therefore overzealous application of the principle.
