Hi, can this be implemented?
For example - my partner want to spend from our joint Account, I want to be able to approve the spending from my app before she could. Is that possible?
I think if you want this level of control joint account is not for you.
22 Likes
hi @Ogunbameru this isnāt possible with Monzo, I donāt know of any UK banks that would allow you to control someone elseās spending like this. Ethically questionable at best.
12 Likes
This is a repugnant concept.
19 Likes
Can you imagine waiting in a store for authorisation, not just from your bank, but from your partner?
5 Likes
Ideas like this highlight the need of an unlike button. 
5 Likes
If you have a joint account than you are both legally entitled to access the money in that account (in accordance with the terms and conditions you signed up to).
As a result (and as a non lawyer/legal person), Iād question whether this sort of control would even be legal, before we get anywhere near to questioning the morality of it.
9 Likes
Everyone vilified this idea so quickly, jeez. Yes itās possible, but not with Monzo(?). Itās just a both-to-sign account where both parties have to sign off on spending, so the reverse logic works where you cannot spend without your partnerās approval. Before you hit me with ethics/legality, consider if one of you has a spending issue, or you are going through a divorce. These accounts have a purpose.
If you do actually mean a secondary person, so they can spend but only with your permission, essentially thatās a single account where you give your permission away. But donāt go there. Just give them the money as a transfer and avoid a joint account.
1 Like
I have no problem with dual signature accounts. They do exist.
Finding one, however, that isnt meant for a charity or trust is going to be a problem, before you begin to battle with the fact that there will be no debit cards, no internet banking, probably no direct debits (when setting up these you usually have to state you are authorised to do so on the account, which you obviously cannot when two or more parties must authorise) and youāll essentially be using jointlyāsigned cheques in the main.
This type of account would be no more use in a divorce than a regular joint account because one person could simply block the other.
Dual signature accounts imply that both parties equally authorise the other. But that is not what was asked for.
Like I said, the idea of one person āapprovingā (read controlling) a womanās spending is abhorrent.
5 Likes
Better than one person bankrupting the other by withdrawing all the funds and overdraft then running. Legally, if you are meant to jointly shoulder the debt and if they are hiding abroadā¦
Judging a bit early, given the one line of facts? It may be doubtful, but they both might agree about and want things to work like that? Of course the better option is then to have a dialogue, but thatās not very techy. How people determine fair between them isnāt for me to say. And there is a small possibility in another scenario the man is being controlled - I hope you still find that abhorrent.
1 Like
Agreed they exist, that wasnāt what was asked though.
In the context of a Monzo joint account specifically, which is where the question was asked, the Ts and Cs (I believe) define the relationship between the two parties, then my answer stands.
1 Like
Iām judging the facts as they were presented. Iām not judging anyone and Iām not making any assumptions of the people involved in the question. Iāve been very clear in stating my opinion is of the concepts of the original question, not the questioner. Of course Iād find anyoneās finances being controlled by another disgusting, where the person has the mental capacity to make their own, proper, safe decisions.
Yes Iāve used deliberate, strong language. Thatās because the idea of economic freedom is a supporting tenet of universal human rights; the right to freedom of expression and thought, and the right to a private life. The concept of controlling anotherās finances is big stuff.
3 Likes
Can you explain a bit more about why you would like this and how you would expect it to work?
Itās probably not something we would consider exploring in the context of a joint account. Or maybe any, even GoHenry doesnāt do that I think.
5 Likes
I donāt actually think thatās better. Itās as controlling as running off with all the money.
1 Like
Some ideas deserve to be vilified.
1 Like
I donāt have a joint account but I imagine if I did it might have quite a lot of money in it. Being able to sign off on purchases over a certain amount might be a good security concept?
The payments systems require the auth fairly instantaneously though as has been discussed elsewhere so it might have to work more likeāIām about to withdraw Ā£x from a merchant is this OK?ā
Might also be useful for joint pots where someone could be buying something expensive in a flat share and need sign off for access to the money?
I think requiring authorisation from the other party/parties on a joint account for purchases over a certain amount isnāt a terrible idea as long as the authorisation works both ways.
(That was the point)
However, if you live in England or Wales you may be able to argue you were subject to undue influence or misled and are therefore not liable. In Scotland, you wonāt be so lucky: the guarantor is liable no matter what the circumstances. And wherever you are in the UK, ignorance is no defence: if things have got that serious, you should contact Citizens Advice or seek legal advice.
1 Like
You said blocking funds was ābetterā:
Blocking funds is not better. Itās as controlling as running away with the money. Theyāre both as bad as each other.
Anyway, weāre drifting.
2 Likes