This is why we have healthy competition, where one may say no, the other will say yes.
Innocent until proven guilty, I somewhat agree, but Monzo clearly found something they didn’t like.
We don’t have the full facts so we can sit here and make assumptions on both sides, however, I’m more in favour of the regulated entity acting accordingly towards a customer with very negative and law breaking history.
I am passionate about this. Its not fair regardless of the stupid decisions people make. People should be given the ability to access limited banking functionality at no expense to themselves. If a bank wants to close someones account they need to do the right thing and make sure the affected customer has the support they need.
My proposal to fix this issue is that there is a special account that can only be opened by banks with a fraud agency or state run company etc that has deposit protection and limited functionality that can be opened by a bank and then the affected account thats going to be closed is CASSed over to this said account. These agencies can then monitor future activity.
HSBC made the biggest step in making banking available for everyone by offering their special BNL account to homeless people. BNL is a special account flag they have called “BANK_NO_LENDING”.
It means an account holder can have basic functions without needing a registered address.
I fucking stan that idea making it easier for homeless people to receive benefits to help them get on their feet. Its a massive step forward. I think banks like Monzo can be the difference instead of sitting on the same coach and change how banks handle account closures so it doesnt leave people in an “accountless” state. People go through all sorts of ups and downs in life and small actions like having your bank account closed can be all it takes to flip.
Seriously. Bad decisions. We live in a different world and Monzo should be a bit more responsible given the reach they have and the ability they have to make a difference. I am not in any way saying that banks should not offload criminals I am saying that banks should move them somewhere they have access to limited banking that is regulated and monitored by relevant agencies that can take things further.
Being declined a bank account in a digital world just because a bank wants tom say no should not be the case any more. We simply live in a different world now where cash is less and less useable.
Limited? Spending, transfers, and income? That’s a bank account in itself.
What happens when these then find the same suspicious activity and in turn don’t want them as a customer either? Goes full circle.
This is a basic bank account that all legacy banks offer to customers who don’t meet the eligibility for a standard bank account (with or without lending).
She wasn’t declined an account, she had one, she broke the rules so they withdrew the service.
No one said my final point was about Westbrook. It’s not full circle because when there’s evidence there’s a conviction. So yes if banks want a customer they need to be given banking abilities somewhere.
So there needs to be a organisation that takes these customers on. The difficulty for you is your lucky your not in the same position as these people who can’t get a bank account which is why you can’t see these failings.
I hope you end up accountless one day so you can experience what it’s like. This conversations going in circles because your stuck in your own belief.
If there’s so much evidence why are they not reporting them for financial crime eh?
No one has been convicted from a report from a bank. It’s all bogus big bank lies
It won’t happen, but thank you.
Unless someone has intentionally damaged their reputation with every bank online or on the high street, these people will always have access to some form of account, even a credit union can help with these types of people.
I love your passion for change but unfortunately your points fall short of the reality in where people CAN have an account, they just can’t be directed towards them Ie Monzo saying we are closing your account, but go hit up Barclays as they will offer you a basic account instead, this would cause so much regulatory conflict it would not be worth their time or money.
This is a customers issue (not specifically Westbrook) and the customer needs to take responsibility 100%.
You completely missed my other point. I didn’t mention sending them to another bank but ok. We move. It’s clear that you don’t have the capability to step outside your own shoes 
I read what you said, but where is the limit for this?
Banks do this themselves, they have financial crime, fraud and also account monitoring teams who handle flags such as using current accounts as business account, and if a customer continues to breach their rules, they decide they no longer want them as a customer.
It’s the customer who is generally at fault, and they will have to fix their own problems they chose to cause.
Throwing insults isn’t really fair just because my opinion is different to yours 
Nothing has been confirmed.. again
And the point related to people who have their account closed for no reason. If you suspect a account user of commuting a crime report it if not move on.
At the end of the day sole traders do not need a business account so that point is defunct.
There are plenty of cases where accounts are closed for no reason. Like I said earlier this has been admitted and there are plenty of cases where people are declined a current account.
My point surrounds people in the bracket that are not at fault. Westbrook is not at fault until the bank share their reasoning
I didn’t insult you in any way at all. I simply said your not showing the ability to step outside your own shoes as your only responding with the same argument
Just on the comments Tom made on the 11FS podcast, he didn’t say they closed accounts for ‘f**k all’. What he said was there were a few which were borderline, so they took a more risk adverse approach, and closed/suspend them.
You’ll find they actually do, as it is still deemed business by some, if not most, banks.
Let’s just agree to disagree.
Before my company formed as a limited company used my personal account for all my business stuff. It’s been checked before and even researching most sole traders use their personal accounts. Only if your a limited company you can’t.
That is the banks decision though which might vary from bank to bank. If a bank says ‘no business transactions in a personal account’ then that is how it is.
For what it is worth, I agree that something should be done about those who struggle with bank accounts (for whatever reason), but I don’t know what the solution is.
People who say ‘it will never happen to me’ are naive to the world. Even Monzo’s ex CEO said they have accidentally closed peoples accounts. People accidentally get CIFAS markers. We don’t live in a perfect world where everything is perfect all the time. Mistakes happen.
I think we’re conflating two things here:
I wholeheartedly agree that there’s a systemic issue that might lead to people being unbanked.
With current regulatory and commercial incentives, Monzo is acting rationally.
Both these things can be true at the same time.
To sort out number 1) we shouldn’t take aim at Monzo: it’s an issue for government which has outsourced a large part of law enforcement to private firms and which has created regulations that result in the current situation.
I wasn’t using the name Monzo to indicate they are the ones doing it. All banks do it. Barclays I believe had the worst rep for it at one point.
My point of using monzo is as a fintech bank built on the future they have the reach to make big changes and lobbying changes to the government to prevent people being left unbanked but no one is doing it.
I love banking with Monzo I just wish they closed this gap and made some changes surrounding this. Even if it means approaching the government to make new legislations or for banks to opt into a agreement to bank the unbanked under special terms or the government should appoint a company that can take on the unbanked like think money for example. They are known for taking on a lot of unbanked people maybe they could become the appointed bank.
We need changes in the banking industry and I think if monzo was the one to take this forward it would be a big win for them.
I want using the name Monzo to accuse them for being the culprit of the mass account closures. That’s been discussed before and all banks do it
Accidents can be fixed, accounts closed for legitimate reasons are what I was referring to.
What defines “Business Purposes”. Sole Traders are their own legal entity so its their own funds and their own transactions in their own legal name.
Businesses in formation are different legal entities. If i sold a candle on facebook for £10 and the buyer put it into my bank account thats not a business transaction thats a sole trader transaction. Different thing
Monzo define it here: Monzo Help - Using your Monzo current account as a business account
Using a personal account as a sole trader is classed as business use.
Business use:
• Using your personal account as the primary bank account for a business as either a registered company or sole trade
I really agree with this. I think in the bank closing process, no matter the situation they should do something to make sure the individual is not left unbanked.
I get the other side of it. People might have been abusive to staff, at very high risk of committing fraud or actually committed fraud, and banks have a moral and/or legal obligation at the minute to protect themselves.
But there needs to be an industry solution somewhere because being unbanked in our society leaves often vulnerable people at severe disadvantage, often leads to situations where they are vulnerable to financial abuse (when they need to use someone else’s account for their income for example).
