If one of the main issues you’re encountering is card holders using the card while abroad and not in the UK, why not create a rewards type account that tops up an allowance for using your card to withdraw cash abroad? Still keeping it free. So, the more you use your card in the UK, the more you can use your card for cash abroad.
1 Like
Precisely. It’s pretty obvious that a monthly charge would be regressive, with those who can only afford an annual holiday subsidising those who go away monthly. Much better to have a reasonable annual limit, even if it’s lower than £2,400.
1 Like
I like the confidence! I hope so too, and that Monzo won’t be conned by people being paid to use their phones as cash mules 
I think a fourth option, which would be a £200 monthly limit, which could be rolled over, between months, say up to three months etc, so theres not excessive abuse of the system.
1 Like
I still can’t vote as can’t see the voting button. I opted for a Monzo card as I have a small limited income, due to being unable to work thanks to my worsening disability, and I will be using my Monzo card on my cheap holiday in Europe once a year to buy from shops, supermarkets, restaurants and also take cash out. It’s a good way for me to budget, by loading my card with what I save up for my holiday, I go without all year to get some much needed Sun and escape. The cash bit is important in case of an emergency, as you just never know , and not everyone can get credit cards. I would vote option 4 to have an annual non-UK ATM allowance, not a monthly one, of at least £1000. Which you can use all in one month or across 12 months, but once you’ve used it, then you pay a fee for each non-UK ATM cash withdrawal. £200 a month wouldn’t help me if my mobility scooter was stolen and I needed to hire a replacement, which I’d need straight away and the hire companies only take cash. I got the card so I didn’t have to carry much cash around. So option 4, annual non-UK ATM withdrawal allowance for everyone, once you’ve used up that annual allowance then you pay a fee for each non-UK ATM cash withdrawal thereafter. That way it is fair for everyone.
I’m guessing the people who have never had to withdraw cash while on holiday aren’t married with kids?
Ice cream vendors? Hot food stands? Street food vendors? Toy shops? Not everywhere accepts plastic, especially the smaller shops.
Please can you share some examples of what the cost would actually be using some scenarios?
People make bad decisions when they don’t understand true cost - hence why most financial products, and especially credit give examples.
My thoughts are everyone picked the “free” one - but actually if you’re in a country where you can pay at PoS electronically, its free anyway! But if you’re in a country that only accepts cash - you’ll pay constantly and at a higher rate than if you chose option 2 or 3! 
ABS
First time poster not sure where to post so excuse my lack of Monzo posting etiquette. I recently joined monzo as my job takes me to Africa a lot. The money i use is from private and government funders so ensuring the money I spend is spent efficiently is so important. Equally i travel often to europe on personal trips.
From my experience it is easier to get hold of euros in the uk than African (generalised -non eu or usd) currency. So I suggest you charge to withdraw euos due to its accessibility and USD but less readily available currency should remain free. That means if you forget or dont want to withdraw euros or USD prior to travelling you are penalised but for those outside of these less available currency areas are not further penalised. You would gain a lot of NGO support. I would also accept a small fee on euros and USD as all other banks charge that anyway.
Equally i have 6 bank accounts which i spread my money to ensure the best withdrawal rate depending on where i am. Todays customer needs to be more active and savvy.
I hope this insight helps!
Does this help?
1 Like
Option 4. Free in the U.K. £200 equivalent monthly allowance in Europe. Whatever % breaks even / small profit above the monthly allowance and outside Europe.
I would prefer option 3 but with the option 1 charges.
So free £200 allowance, then 1% in Europe and 2% worldwide. But I’d much rather there be a yearly allowance of 1200 or a rolling 3 month maximum of £600. Thus allowing monzo to achieve the 2016 ATM cost per user.
1 Like
What about a fee for the leavers and the long term people nothing the longer the better i.e. We all get a small charge at the beginning but the more we use the more money in the account and the time with you the more reward we gain so opinion 3 is a grate way then reward on 300 on 500 and so on . Then for me it would stay at 200 which is fine as I haven’t been out of the country for years ! . I just voted opinion 3
The monthly cap (option 1) seems the fairest of all options but how about this:
Some might feel that its not right that some people only use there cards maybe once or twice a year abroad just to take advantage of the no fee features of the card when there are other more “loyal” users who credit their accounts regularly and spend at home (and away) and really feel part of the Monzo journey. So my idea is this: if you top up and spend less than say £100 a month on your card or there has been very little activity on your account then you automatically you face a level of fees when you are abroad. Those who credit their account with let say £500+ say for 3 months or more either receive no foreign withdrawal fees or preferential lower fees than those who’s accounts/card remain dormant for most of the time. Alternatively, it could be that instead of crediting the account by a minimum amount a card must reach a threshold level of say 20 transactions a month for preferential fees to be triggered.
2 Likes
Hmmmm ?
Surely the issue with ATM charges occurs every time somebody makes a withdrawal ?
In which case a £200 monthly allowance would still be hideously expensive to Monzo if somebody was only withdrawing £10 at a time ?
If you put a minimum withdrawal limit of £100/150 a time then surely that would work better ?
Failing that, the 1.5% worldwide charge seems pretty fair to me, but again, it doesn’t stop people from making expensive small ATM withdrawals
3 Likes
I agree with a higher yearly limit. I have my card for monthly use as so much easier to track spending. However great to use on holiday. It seems the majority are going to end up paying for the monority that’s abusing the system. I’m happy to pay the charges but maybe a system where you charge us but some form of cash back for regular users, maybe every month you put in x you get y cashabck on overseas withdrawals? Appreciate it maybe too difficult to run though. Great work guys, always excellent customer service! 
Call me old fashioned but when I go abroad infrequently and need cash I take it with me before I go, i.e. get a good rate at an exchange But then that’s probably because I’ve always been scared of foreign ATMs, probably due to the charges!
Passing the ‘real’ cost of 1% or 2% on seems the most appropriate, and presumably still good value. The cost of running the machines/network and convenience of access needs to be paid for somehow, so that ATM you go to that someone’s spent time loading up with the cash you need gets something back…
This only appears to have been raised due to people taking advantage. Obviously this wasn’t the intention. Option 3 sounds plausible if manageable but 3% would be a turn off and feel a bit profiteering, so maybe option 4 could be:
- Keep a free allowance limit but then pass on the 1 or 2%, limits the liability to the allowance and keeps the same ethos that existed before this situation became an issue, the test for this would be - if this was the case originally would it still be an issue now?
K
1 Like
totally disagree. that just favours those on higher salaries with more income and hence more money to spend and therefore more transactions. those on lower wages where money is tight will be doing less transactions. your proposal benefits the rich and penalises the poor
2-4% of £200 is a pretty small fee, whether for sporadic use or each and every month. You’re not saving much by having a £200 allowance, or to put it the other way, you’re not losing much by not having that allowance.
Personally, I’d rather pay a lower percentage whether small or large amount (1.5%).
This way it costs me a little more if I take out less than $200/month (without an allowance) but significantly less if I take out a large amount. And Monzo cover their costs. Win win really.
For those saying they’d pay a monthly cost, not having a £200 allowance is more or less the same, except you also get the benefit of a lower rate on anything else.
I think the fairest way is for users to be charged what it costs Monzo - Option 1 (1% for ATM withdrawals in Europe, 2% everywhere else). Although option 3 sounds like a plausible option, in practice an allowance of £200 per month that does not roll over is not enough for a 7 day holiday abroad. It would also mean that Monzo would make a profit on users who exceed the monthly allowance by charging 3%.
1 Like
Hi,
How about giving a customer the chance to opt into one of the 3 options ? In this way you can have a more tailored approach and the customer can decide the solution that would best suit him/her
I would personally chose option 3!