Poundland Debit Cards
Coming to a brown sofa in Norwich soon. (If you get the reference)
2 Likes
‘Predatory’ is subjective depending on one’s opinion of it. We might think it is, but a veteran bank executive with an aim for profitability might not see it that way, especially if a lot of UK banks already do it. Who knows 
. We start charging a little here… Why not charge a little there…
My view is I’m against it, like I’m against card replacement fees as it can cause a slippery slope.
I am still pissed off at my French bank charging me a replacement card fee in 1987 when the mag stripe on my card delaminated. Faulty card but had to pay. 33 years on it still annoys me. (I am from Yorkshire so obviously don’t like paying for stuff unnecessarily, and 45F / about £4.50 was a lot of money to me then.)
I had a habit when I was at uni of sliding my Natwest card in my back pocket when I went out and sitting on it.
By the time I’d sat in my 5th card in a year they told me the next one I’d have to pay for. I went and bought a wallet 
5 Likes
Thats exactly it, try to change the habit of thinking cards grow on trees and maybe will take more care if they know theyll need to pay for them after say 2 or 3 free replacements.
Yeah i think something like that has to be a given, awareness is key to ensure people will look after their card better where possible to avoid the fees because ultimately thats what would be the end goal here, people will only need a small amount of replacements each and actually avoid paying the replacement fee in an ideal world
A quite small response number so far with 71 votes.
Generally though looks as if the community is in favour of some sort of charge (with 49/71 votes) all favouring a charge of some sort of after a certain number of replacements.
I haven’t voted because it didn’t say what time period it was referring to. (Or I missed it.)
What sort of period would you think is acceptable.
As a suggestion i said 12 months rolling or a calendar year but obvs thats not set in stone
I think your suggestion adds another dynamic to it in that people will contact COps in order to try and charm and avoid the fees. Thats something i think could be avoided with a set in stone limit.
Personally i think no because one being the limit is just unrealistic and people would feel rightly aggrieved like you say if they were made pay for the replacement and it wasnt their fault.
If however the limit was 2 and a person had to pay for the 3rd replacement i think thats an easier sell as its harder to justify that all 3 causes were due to card fault or out of the control of the customer.
I would say yes personally as thats the point of having the 3 buffer to allow for leeway.
It would be unfortunate to have to pay after genuinely not meaning to hit it but also two thirds your fault that you’re now at the limit.
Lots of policies set out fair usage, phone insurance, all you can eat buffets etc.
I agree chat can feel shit and being passed between COps and “Specialist” to the same copy pasted answers does feel impersonal but… I think this is very much Karen behaviour if someone tries to contact cops about ordering their 4th card of the year and not feeling like they should have to pay for it really.
If you’ve lost your card once then thats fine these things happen, more than once then thats not monzos fault (the things hot coral, how could you miss it).
1 Like
Could one of the @Coral-Crew please mark this as done and close the thread?
As requested