Fair, but people here only seem to do that in order to attempt to dismiss stories and brush them under the carpet.
I didn’t realise. I have no personal agenda here by posting, I just hadn’t seen it before.
FWIW - I’m absolutely sure this doesn’t represent Monzo as a whole, and I’m also sure this will have been dealt with. I did note all the screenshots were from 2020 or 2021/22 so as has been alluded to looks like it’s been regurgitated due to the whole Coutts thing for attention.
A post was merged into an existing topic: Removed Posts - July 2023
Hi there, just placing this thread into Slow Mode while we clean things up.
Let’s please keep the discussion on topic. In this case, that’s media posts about Monzo. We’ll remove off-topic posts about broader topics (for instance, flags and moderation) - for which you can create separate topics or DM us directly.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, though I do wonder why a company would not have some form of monitoring on official workplace channels. Appreciate that I’m coming from more of the angle of “agreeing” with Monzo staff (though I dislike the term ‘terf’) but if there is no room for the ‘debate’ on the channel there shouldn’t really be the discussion in the first place.
It’s a tricky one really. Being inclusive is important. From what I’ve read, Monzo do a great job at this, with gender neutral toilets, language inclusivity, support for marginalised communities and allowing a greater degree of freedom to each individual customer to be “themselves”.
However not everyone will agree with everything, and so long as language is fundamentally respectful and structured, all angles should be allowed. I do think sometimes on all angles the language becomes “us vs them” which isn’t helpful. This is normally why I dislike the term ‘terf’ because I’ve seen it applied in a wide variety of cases where there is no consistency so it’s clearly a subjective phrase. For example I have no issue with gendered and gender neutral toilets co-existing to provide maximum inclusivity but then was (quite aggressively and piled on) called a ‘terf’ for not believing in 100% gender neutral toilets (though to be honest it wouldn’t bother me personally but I understand why that might not be the case for everyone).
If I worked at Monzo and had that pile on at home then came to work to find it brandished all over like this it would honestly make me feel uncomfortable and outcast by colleagues.
I get why they sometimes can’t tell a customer the reasons for things, but in cases like this, surely the answer is to be honest? That would have made things a lot easier?!
Was literally about to say this.
This is a clear example where they absolutely can tell the customer why, and it’s pretty simple really.
Why oh why do Monzo continue to push out this one line that they cannot say why? Do they have limited space on the Word document of responses?
Why not just say it in their business account eligibility criteria if they aren’t inclined to have PEPs and by association political parties as customers - sorry it’s come to our attention you are … see our T and Cs
Banks can and do have PEPs, it’s what they use their account for that’s the problem and thus causes further risk other than being PEP alone.
If it’s to top up their account and go spending abroad, fine, but when it’s £5k here and £10k there for their political party agenda, no go, as someone could pay £20k to bribe them for a policy in their favour, and that’s where the issue is.
The article doesn’t help either
This makes it sound like a Monzo error;
After the BBC contacted the bank about the case, it said it did not allow political party accounts and had made a mistake in allowing it to be opened.
But this like the customer lied and got found out
"In this case, the account wasn’t originally categorised as a political party.
“After this was identified and corrected, the customer was given notice that the account would be closed. We recognise that this experience will have been frustrating for the customer and we’re sorry for that."
It’s not strictly a PEP issue (not sure why Carlo takes such an authoritative tone here as if he was still with Monzo).
It’s simple – the business isn’t classed as a political party on Companies House, it uses an awfully generic SIC code. So someone at Monzo made a mistake and when it came to light they had to close it to keep consistent with their rules. Much ado about nothing.
Wholly irrelevant and how you decided to interpret my reply.
Lots of people talking about it and lots of people talking about people not talking it.
Obviously it is just Twitter/x, but not many positive tweets/Xs about Monzo. Some complaining that the account was closed, some complaining that she was able to account in the first place despite it being political with them suggesting Monzo’s checks aren’t good enough, and some complaining that people should be able to open political accounts wherever they like.
However, as long as Monzo doesn’t say anything stupid to the press, this should blow over quickly. It is hardly the biggest news of the week.
Agree, Monzo don’t need to say anything. Literally wouldn’t even be news if it didn’t have the existing bigger story to piggyback on.
“Bank operates in line with its Ts&C’s” is hardly the gotcha anyone thinks it is. And Watchdog has shown Monzo can weather far worse negative press.
Gina Miller is on BBC News now and she said that “Coutts opened an account for us and then didn’t tell us why they closed our account despite being able to under current rules”.
Monzo might get away with it just from the confusion haha.
Millar and Farage swim in same pool.
Tweets you never thought you’d see: