Article about Monzo's "late night spending 'safety net'"

(Peter G) #1

I was reading this article, and was struck by this paragraph:

An example of a forward-thinking provider designing against this is Monzo’s implementation of a late-night spending “safety net”, wherein users are provided with a summary of any purchases made after a certain time the previous day (say, 11pm), along with an option to review and cancel certain purchases before the funds leave the customer’s account.

This is all new to me - have I missed something major* or is the article a bit confused?

*not unlikely - it happens frequently

(Tom ) #2

This seems somewhat unlikely - given that the response from vendors would be to simply stop taking Monzo cards as a payment method.

(Peter G) #3

Yeah, strange isn’t it? Wonder where it came from?

(Kenneth C Lawrence) #4

I feel this might be a very badly worded paragraph myself.

My only thoughts on it would be a situation I had the other day, where I saw a transaction leave I did not recognise and queried immediately - whereas legacy banks would have you wait 3 days to see it in a statement (by which point it has left the account) and have to refund. - The transaction was a fraudulent one and Monzo were able to help stop this for me :slight_smile:

(Tom ) #5

I’ve found the source and it is indeed true. I read it as late night pub visits or restaurants etc, but it’s related to online purchasing.

Great blog here:

(Peter G) #6

Ah yes - thanks for spotting that. Good blog!

I think the article would make more sense if it said something like “concept” rather than “implementation” at the beginning - does it feel a bit lazy to anyone else?

(Kenneth C Lawrence) #7

I love this! The late night spending could be useful, but most of my purchases are late night haha.
The designated person to review high spends would be invaluable to me though!

#8

I can’t help but feel that we are simply “nannying” the people who can’t control themselves.

We already have instant notifications - So if something comes out you don’t recognise, you can query it straight away.

The example in the blog about mental health may well be valid - But the cynic in me says that Monzo would appeal more to the people who’ve had 1 too many, or just generally impulsive, than the actual mentally ill.

(Tom ) #9

You mean a mental illness?

#10

That blog is spot on. On a manic cycle impulse control is a huge problem and would be really good. The ability to set a temporary daily limit for times like that would be great as well. I’d say 90% of my debt can be seen as mania induced and the subsequent interest and charges

#11

No, I wasn’t referring to the mentally ill.

I was referring to the people who have zero control of their finances, buy what they want, when they want, and wonder why they have no money (who aren’t mentally ill).

The “large” purchase confirmation is a better idea.

(Tom ) #12

What’s you’re referring to there could very much be classed as a mental disorder.

(Kenneth C Lawrence) #13

I agree this is nannying, but is also optional to turn on or off.

Querying I have had to do before now on a fraudulent transaction, and instant notifications are brilliant for this. But late night moping or alcoholism, you may not care about instant notifications and need the clear head.

Myself as a shopaholic recovering from some serious debts, being able to have the assistance to stop spending is invaluable (and I wish existed years ago haha). Less so myself, but I have made some impulse buys under the influence of alcohol I have had to return and refund when they arrive.

I feel the “designated person” aspect for large purchases though would help while I am still on the final 3 years of my debt management plan, and knowing that if I try to purchase anything, I have to justify to my partner why I am after this (I still make a cheeky purchase on payday and deal with the repercussions later). So yes, it is nannying people who can’t control themselves, but I feel I am one of these and need it.

#14

By your definition, 90% of students all have a mental disorder.

At the risk of repeating myself - Yes, these concept features would clearly help the mentally ill (as the blog post points out).

However, my argument is that it’s yet another safety net for those who aren’t mentally ill, to have even less care and responsibility of their finances, because “Don’t worry… I can get drunk, spend what I want, and then cancel it tomorrow”.

I’m not saying it doesn’t serve a genuine purpose to some people - I’m saying it has the potential to be used in ways which it wasn’t intended.

#15

That’s a fair and honest comment. Good luck with the management plan!

#16

Does it matter if people use it ways it wasn’t intended as long as it helps them?
Overspending is a huge problem for a lot of people, surely a tool to help is a good thing?

#17

It’s very hard to put down in words - It also ties in a little with the “education” thread that has just started as well.

If I can try and clarify my point…

Firstly, as a Mental Illness help, I see the value - 100%.

But as I said, my concern is that it makes people less responsible towards their money, and effectively gives them a bigger chance to continue to make mistakes, without the risk of being punished (through lack of financial responsibility).

#18

I do see your point and agree to a certain extent.
Purchases under £100 wouldn’t be affected according to the example so people would still need to take a certain amount of responsibility as repeated smaller purchases can do as much damage as 1 large.

#19

I think there were 2 examples.

The first was for any amount (I thought) - Providing it was something which could be returned (or hadn’t shipped out), you could cancel it (I guess you could return things anyway?).

Then second example was for the “Over £100 spend” - This I see being more useful - Heck, I’d also use it for my kids at university if they weren’t very good with money…

But then by my own admission… I’ve already failed as a parent! :joy: