Some banks do tell you when it matches very clearly.
Lloyds banking group is one example that comes to mind.
If you put “Joe Bloggs” as the payee name and it checks that, it just comes back with a tick to say that Joe Bloggs is right if that’s considered an acceptable name. It doesn’t “give away”, for example, that the real account name was “Mr Joe Adam Bloggs”.
I have tried playing around with this with Monzo and some of my other accounts and actually Monzo does reveal the full name registered on the account if it’s considered to be a close match. That’s more like if you’ve typed in “Jan Doe” but the name is actually “Jane Doe”. You get warned that the account belongs to Jane Doe and asked if you want to proceed.
However, I agree with the general thrust of the initial question about this in that Monzo doesn’t make it sufficiently clear that the check has passed correctly - it simply moves to the next stage of the payment process like nothing has happened. It would be much more reassuring to the user if there was an additional step making it clear that the name matches, and it wouldn’t be giving anything more away that what a near-match already reveals.
I think this is another case of hiding behind the reasoning of “can’t do it because of privacy” when that actually isn’t a logical argument. Especially when the user already has the name correct. It’s a labelling and user interface design issue more than anything.
I think Monzo (wrongly in my view) assume that the user is “supposed to know” that CoP checks are happening and they will get warned if they fail. But many users do not realise this, and this logic misses the point that some accounts are either opted-out of CoP or don’t support it. Therefore to assume that nothing=pass would be wrong. It would be much clearer to provide positive feedback of a successful match as well as negative feedback for when there isn’t a match.