I’m sure they do consider CIFAS markers, but what they don’t do is have a policy of blanket refusal when someone with a CIFAS marker applies to open an account. This would be in line with their policy of ‘making money work for everyone’ and in helping the unbanked get a foot back on the banking ladder, as it were.
You may well be right that this ends up accounting for some number of subsequently frozen accounts, but I think this is not likely a metric that Monzo will share.
Yes. I can confirm that.
Simply not true…
My 100k was from memory and wrong… as you quoted below the number is closer to 400k (SARs from banks). As for Monzo being a small proportion, I don’t think there’s any evidence it’s only a small proportion but the lack of evidence otherwise and common sense seem to suggest that that’s the case.
This wasn’t my quote, I quoted it from someone else. I said there’s no evidence for that.
Just wanted to clear up what I believe was a lie told on the BBC that a customer was referred to a homeless shelter. What appears to be the customer in question was in fact referred to Shelter, the housing charity who likely would have been able to provide advice on how to communicate with a landlord etc.
Unfortunately the BBC didn’t seem to do the same digging I did…
I’ve removed all personal info but this is the same person who stated they were mentioned on Watchdog in this anti-Monzo Facebook group.
Sensible. They could get in serious legal trouble if they spoke out and said the wrong thing.
That’s it? This was all that was said? People really are simple minded and believe anything told to them on TV.
Do you mean “Was this all that was said on air”?
If so, the report online is definitely less biased / less aggravating than the way the TV segment was put forward.
If thats the case id say the BBC could be sued for slander there quite easily.
What do you expect them to say, though? They’re legally restricted over what they can say. They’ve put out their official statement. There’s nothing more they can say outside of that.
It’s not unusual to be told by an employer not to talk to the press about a media story. I know, as my employer has done so on a few occasions. If the press can take an off-the-cuff employee remark that accidentally strays off-message or makes some other mistake and then present it as an official company response, they will. That’s why an employer will be careful.
Agreed - I’m hoping people from Monzo are monitoring this thread as well as that group. The group seems to have co-ordinated contacting watchdog and several people have come forward saying they were on the show. The screenshots I’ve posted are the only references I can see that fit with the “homeless shelter” comment.
Frustratingly, the person that posted that to Facebook says “via a shelter home for the homeless”.
Shelter doesn’t just provide temporary housing, they offer free advice with how to deal with these sorts of situations, like how to go about asking for more time from your landlord.
It seems most people in the general public that are outraged that Monzo would offer this as an option don’t fully understand what Shelter offers.
Absolutely - and in the Watchdog clip, the presenter claimed “We spoke to monzo on the phone and they had a pop at us”.
Implied agression, but so ambiguous as to what that actually means.
Exactly - and I imagine that was the exact wording used when contacting the BBC. It seems really irresponsible for such claims to be aired without hard evidence being supplied. Especially with something as potentially volatile as a bank.
And yet, here you are, able to chat on the forum. They can’t be trying to avoid you too much.
I didn’t see the report on Watchdog, but out of interest; were there any stats reported on the amount of accounts frozen by high street banks within a time-period similar to the frequency that Monzo has?
Monzo are getting a lot of heat on this but I wonder what the comparative data is? 
After all, it is a legal requirement for banks to act upon suspicion of fraudulent activity, and as Monzo is regulated by the FCA and PRA, I doubt there’s any “funny business” taking place as many on social media seem to assume…
The thing is, it’s entirely possible that Monzo freeze accounts more than other banks (for good reasons) or are highlighting far too many false positives, we just don’t have any data to tell us if that’s the case or not.
No. But there was no rebuttal along those lines either.
It’s lunchtime the following day now, and the question I find I have is: are they, really?
Yes, Watchdog went in on them, and there’s been plenty of internet discussion as a result. But, so far no other news outlet has picked up on the story, which you would expect them to if there was a genuine problem. After all, previous stories - overdraft for shares, the Plus failure - were reported on by multiple outlets.
This could suggest that unlike Watchdog, everyone else has done their due diligence and realised that it’s a non-story in the sense there’s no reason to single Monzo out for acting according to the law.
Certainly in contrast to the last time I watched a whole* episode, which would’ve been back when Robinson and Beer were presenters, Watchdog is now primarily an entertainment show rather than a consumer affairs show.
If there was a genuine problem, it would have been panorama not watchdog.
