They all share data with the same agency called National Hunter. They are all going to behave the same. Its about Banks doing more and about legislations from decades ago being brought up to date
There’s a lot of what ifs going on here. If you don’t see a closure notice, won’t get it set up in time, you should be able to be fraudulent or abusive then the bank should still bend over backwards to help you?!
If you can’t get a basic account that are set up and designed for this purpose, well then that says a lot about the person applying. It’s harsh but actions have consequences if you can’t get the simplest account then you’ve probably done a lot wrong. What grounds are these accounts denied on?
Actions have consequences but people need the functionality to live while they make amends for their poor choices. The government and banks can do more to help they just need the pressure to change things.
Decisions like bank account closures are mostly automatic and not manually reviewed. Its not a fair impartial process for the customer and they cant have a say nor be told why. It would be interested to see the rate of account closures compared to the rate of financial crime convictions. I dont have a crystal ball but i think the account closures will be much higher
Of couse it will be much higher. There’s no burden of proof. T&Cs aren’t law.
FYI all Monzo closures are manually reviewed and not automatic.
I think here though I have another issue.
In most cases of these fraud risk issues, CIFAS markers etc the bank staff decided it. Maybe along with the NSA. The problem is neither the bank staff nor the police, however right they think they are, should have the power to cast a guilty verdict. That’s a courts and jury’s job, and the punishment is for a judge.
This is where we sort of hit the line between banks being private businesses and banks providing a function that is necessary. Sure a private business can protect itself, no one is saying it can’t, but when the whole function of having a bank account that enables people to receive salaries or benefits or control their own money is provided by these, I think somehow there needs to be an industry solution that ensures between them everyone is able to have one.
But you can still get a basic account with a CIFAS marker can’t you?
On what grounds are these super basic accounts denied?
We dont know because of law from decades ago allowing banks to keep this secret.
From the Which website:
Could I be refused a basic bank account?
Since September 2016, you are entitled to open a basic bank account if you are ineligible to open a standard bank account.
However, Money Advice Service says you might be refused if:
- You can’t provide proof of ID or address
- You are eligible for a different account with that bank or building society
- You refuse a credit check (although you don’t have to pass one)
- You are threatening, abusive or violent towards staff
- They suspect you of fraud or money laundering.
That last point being most valid.
We don’t know, but they are/can be. People with CIFAS markers have reported trouble getting one
edit: we do know apparently, see above
Whilst we are all clearly on different sides of the table although i feel like @breville_monkey can see my point. I think it is really important that this conversation is had and I think banks and the government need to have this conversation along with regulators and firms like National Hunter and they need to come up with a solution to the cirlce that never ends for people who may or may not have made poor choices. Actions in life are sometimes a means to an end and some people are coerced into doing things they dont understand the repucussions of
@AlanDoe feels like this has outgrown the Monzo in the Media topic. Any chance of spinning it off to a new one?
Yes but can it not be unlisted. Can we call it something nice and not negative like “Ways to help the people left unbanked” or something to keep the discourse going. This conversation is really important to the future of banking as more and more things go online
I’d say to go ahead and create it yourself and we can carry the discussion on over there
I don’t think there’s need for manual intervention, let’s see if we can sort ourselves out for once
As long as the first one means that a homeless person can still get an account, I don’t see the issue with that list?
If you feel like you’ve been tricked/coerced/unknowingly committed fraud, then I’d like to think it hadn’t got that far. Although I’m sure there will be edge cases.
Only HSBC offer homeless people accounts and that was a recent announcement. It was in partnership with Shelter
For clarity I have replied to Revels in the newly created thread.
Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but with the recent discussions maybe it’s ok to post here.
For context, Simon was one of the original 10 or so people at Monzo I think, so it’s interesting to hear these kinds of thoughts from people in the industry.