Yes, all this stuff really needs to be situational. Has to depend on the person, the tone of the conversation and - if it’s offered - then offered sensitively.
3 Likes
It’s just a really tough topic to get perfectly right - both in terms of ‘right message to the right customer’ and ‘right PR’.
On the whole I’d rather monzo do it than not.
I saw one example of a customer, who either got caught out with fraud done to them, or they had their account locked (not sure which) - and they were abroad - Monzo offered help to find a nearby embassy - which seemed useful and actionable - so I hope they can continue to do some of that stuff.
7 Likes
What is your side to their claim that Monzo shouted abuse at them?
I’m concerned mainly as I’ve noticed a drop in customer service standards and that’s worrying.
1 Like
If the customer is a victim of fraud, or has trouble managing money, or is in debt, having the bank offer helpful advice is a wonderful change in tone from other banks, and I really like that Monzo considers this part of their mission.
If the bank itself has frozen their funds, or closed an account precipitately, that’s a very different situation. IMO in a case where the bank has caused the distress, the bank should simply say they are sincerely sorry if they have been evicted (for example), and that they are unable to provide more info. Not send them a link to shelter after causing the problem. I completely understand why it might seem sensible in a chat, but also how it could be misconstrued, and how much stress it puts on support agents to have emotional conversations like that with fraudsters as well as real customers and not know which is which. There should be a certain distance there if the bank is responsible for the problem and is unable to actually communicate properly with the customer due to legal restraints.
Put yourself in the position of an innocent customer who has had their account closed without warning. Wouldn’t it be adding insult to injury to then have the bank refuse to discuss it, but helpfully suggest ways to cope with the hardship the bank itself imposed? I can see why that would infuriate customers and suggest Monzo should raise their standards so that this never happens in that context.
There must of course be broad guidelines on this, but according to Monzo from the link provided above by Anthony this is something they are innovating on and constantly improving their algorithms (using machine learning etc which is far from deterministic). And according to their response here they then do human review before making a decision. So the important bit is not dictated by the law you cite, and I really do think that’s an area they can focus on still.
The false positive rate of 25% most recently reported of accounts closed in error (link above from 2017-02) seems shockingly high to me (though I don’t know what the industry rate is or if this is seen as good). It would be interesting to know what the numbers are now, and also what the overall figures are for accounts closed (which I hope would be more reassuring in being a very small number).
2 Likes
Edit: per later replies, they said “Monzo had a pop at us”.
We don’t know many things about this interaction. We don’t know who they spoke to, how they contacted them, or how many times they’d contacted them. Whether they’d got hold of a number for J Random Monzo worker, or whether they were calling the number on the card and being answered by or put through to people who didn’t necessarily have media training. We don’t know, even, if it’s a simple mischaractertisation of a normal conversation.
What we do know is that, outside of the public statement, no Monzo staff members have spoken on this matter - which to me is a sign that a company wide memo has gone out saying “Don’t speak to anyone” and “Refer all and any calls to Public Relations”, but it wouldn’t be fair to speculate too much on any reasons for that.
tl;dr, maybe it didn’t happen, maybe it did, but Watchdog shouldn’t necessarily have presented it as an official company response, especially as they don’t quote any part of that alleged conversation.
2 Likes
Keep two things in mind with that blog post:
(a) it was written pre banking license, and was based on their pre-paid card fraud statistics;
(b) it was 25% of suspected fraud, was considered a false positive (i.e. for every 4 suspected, 1 was a genuine user) rather than 25% of the entire user base (before anyone skims this thread and starts using that statistic incorrectly).
1 Like
In the spirit of transparency, I’m not aware of this happening and I don’t believe it did. We do ask that people use caution when posting here particularly around sensitive issues, since we know that the press do look at this place and have pulled quotes before. But that’s a general guidance, rather than one relating to this specific scenario.
10 Likes
I believe the phrase used was “had a pop at us”
Which is so vague, it makes me think it’s in the milder camp of what was said, because if it was anything stronger I’m sure Watchdog would have made that point
Having read through most of the posts,one thing that isn’t really being discussed is the fact that maybe the law needs to be reformed(The Monzo issue is just part of a large landscape of things.) The freezing of bank accounts probably was very effective in the 90s and probably early 2000’s but its actually a pretty low tech way to deal with a much faster moving threat.
3 Likes
They did make that point, I’m sure it went along the lines of ‘Monzo are furious with us, they’ve been on the phone to have a pop at us’
Yon mean apart from the Facebook group where they all say to each other “go to watchdog” and then they went to watchdog and appeared on Watchdog?
Nope, none at all
8 Likes
What I mean was “have a pop” is a pretty vague statement of how ‘angry’ anyone is. I think Watchdog would have been more explicit in how they described the phone call if it was genuinely anger/furiousness/rage etc, rather than “a pop”.
Have a pop is fairly explicit in its meaning where I’m from.
Why go to Watchdog rather than the ombudsman?
I would lay money on the fact that they contacted Mondo’s press/media team…
Is it? All banks have a duty to help vulnerable customers and in the case of customers suffering from card fraud etc, legacy banks will usually offer their customers interest free overdrafts until the issue is resolved. Something I suspect Fintech’s (not just Monzo) are not as good at
2 Likes
How could they do that without unfreezing your account, thus allowing the fraudster to keep using it?
Also, how do they know it’s not the actual customer lying about fraud until they complete their investigation? The bank would then be risking their own money to be used for further fraudulent activities and I’d expect there to be repercussions. Doesn’t sound like a sensible thing to me 
2 Likes
There is a difference between disputed card transactions/app fraud etc and suspected money laundering.
In the former, I expect legacy banks would be a lot more forthcoming then fintechs
We’re only talking about the latter here. As far as I’m aware, disputing a transaction doesn’t freeze your account.
I can see that a bunch of you are replying right now but I’m temporarily closing this thread (I’ll reopen it soon) and I’ll explain why shortly.
4 Likes