But, if you don’t try and use their antiquated cheque system, how will they truly know how many people want it to be improved? I’m very aware of people having accounts with other banks, I am one of those people. But this is my point. If you don’t use the system, Monzo won’t know so why should they improve something if no-one is using it? No usage can easily be equated to no need to develop anything…
Monzo shouldn’t support cheques and they should join others in phasing them out. Cheques are so antiquated and unnecessary they deserve to die a slow painful death
The more people can do to refuse accepting / using cheques the better too. Most companies now will give refunds and such via other methods but only if you ask, so the more people that do, the more likely they are to change as well.
Asking for advanced features to make it easier for cheques to be deposited and supported just shows how bad they are - so it is just a band-aid fix. where you’re prolonging the inevitable
Due to the amount of cheques I use - it’s an important feature, so it’s less hassle to stick with HSBC for my main account, using Monzo instead for just small spending.
My POV is that for it to become appropriate for me to fully use Monzo as my main account, this is one feature I would need.
@gmclean it’s not for users to force themselves to use a poor feature to encourage the company to change, instead the user goes to another company that offers them the service they need.
Of course, it’s difficult for Monzo to know what the usage is, but this is why I said that they should use a national average, not the people using their own system, as their own system is far behind the competition here.
I didn’t claim that ‘most people’ have heavy usage, but I claimed that a lot of people will. It won’t be 1 in 1000, it will be a good chunk of the population. Especially if Monzo wants to capture the population over the age of 40 who regularly use cheques.
It just seems short sighted to shelve that in favour of less useful, more gimmicky features, like seeing your KFC receipts in the app. Of course, this is my personal opinion and not everybody will need the cheque pay in facility.
My main point is that Monzo used some clearly inaccurate figures on the % of their customers that ‘need’ to pay in cheques, as just looking at those that currently do via Monzo - but this number will be nowhere near the real figure because Monzo offer the least convenient method for doing so.
This being said, this isn’t the right place to be having this debate - as I fear we are hijacking this thread.
Cheques will likely be in existence for longer than you think - they serve a purpose that at present, nothing else does. Yes, in the long term future I doubt they will exist in their current form, and more likely a digital version, but for the foreseeable future they have a place.
But as mentioned before - I fear I’ve hijacked this thread for Cheques - let’s pause this discussion here.
I’ve got to ask what it is that far outweighs all the many, many disadvantages that come with using cheques. I’m sure there will be something that can fill the gap
I just enabled this feature in the labs. I have 2 payees I wish to merge, they have a monzo account and a non monzo account. I select the non monzo one and pick merge, but it doesn’t let me select this monzo account.
Hi, is the monzo option you want just their phone number ? If yes then it will only let you merge once you’ve ‘used’ that contact by either recieving or sending money with monzo to monzo.
Fully agree with this - sure make design changes to make iOS feel more natural to iOS users, and Android Apps more natural to Android Users - but they should still have feature parity.
You guys seems to be recognising first direct as HSBC on the page listing beneficiaries accounts as part of this Lab, is it possible to amend? Appreciate the sort code is tricky for them and ‘belongs’ to HSBC, but any way of overriding that?
From memory, when this came up before, the list is an external artefact rather than something Monzo have put together themselves. That would mea;that any local modification would need to be repeated every time an update was processed.
where you’re prolonging the inevitable 
