Just saw this bit in changes:
“- We don’t include any money you have in Pots when we calculate how much you’re overdrawn by, so you can still go overdrawn with money in your Pots”
This is totally unfair.
I know this is how traditional banks do it, but it’s unfair.
If I owe you £100 and you also owe me £100, none of us should pay the other interest. At best, maybe a really low lombard interest rate, but not 34% (usura rates).
I don’t know why Monzo thought this was a good idea.
129 posts were merged into an existing topic: Overdrafts: take regular pots into account
Some interesting contributions from @sjors, @ttjj, @Chapuys and @benjaminleo amongst others. Some other contributions less helpful.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, reading this topic it does seem that sensible conversation is undermined my regular forum stalwarts who purport to uphold the community guidelines but, perhaps, need to reacquaint themselves with what they’re upholding.
The original thought behind Monzo pots was the ability to allocate specified sums (from the overall balance) for particular purposes.
Suppose I have an income of £1,000 and my mortgage is £300 and bills are £150.
I’d put £300 in the mortgage pot and £150 into a bills pot which would leave £550 of funds. I’d still have a thousand pounds, but I’ve earmarked £450 for certain purposes.
How it works behind the scenes with Monzo I know not. But the theory was to allocate certain sums of money so that the remainder was unallocated and available funds.
If we hold the original concept for a moment, then Monzo does risk being opportunist in terms of making money out of customers. I wouldn’t go as far as predatory, as was mentioned earlier.
Regardless of T&Cs, credit agreements, FCA etc., Monzo’s actions, now, are not what I’d have expected three years ago. But the Monzo of today is not the Monzo of three years ago.
Fair comment. I fear we’d be getting into the semantics of language akin to arguing the difference between T&Cs and Credit Agreement, which ultimately detracts from the point of the discussion, which some are prone to doing.
I understand that was the original intent. Certainly seemed to be that way when Monzo gave a presentation at a meet where they demonstrated the early workings of this functionality.
The discussions at the time were around the envelope method of budgeting whereby money was split up into different envelopes for different purposes such as our grandparents may have done.
That image that you shows a savings account in it as per the idea of monzo being a financial hub, no?
Joe, I think we are both correct. 
In the days of Mondo, the vision was a current account and operating as a financial hub, so that connection to Nutmeg makes sense.
The holiday savings pot, arguably, could be a separate savings product (not Monzo) or a pot as part of the main balance. I can see how confusion arises.
When the idea for pots was first mooted, it was about splitting up monthly Income into separate commitments. Basically, whether the money is in a pot or the main balance, it’s all part of the total balance.
I can see why publicity screenshots show savings accounts and holiday funds. It’s much more positive and exciting than gas bill, electricity bill, water bill and council tax. 
This contributor recalls something similar to my recollection: