Example: You have more than one pending payment &/or direct debit waiting to go out on a particular day, but not enough in your account to cover what you require. Which one wins at getting your funds if you don’t have enough to cover them all?
Solution: Be able to prioritise certain pending transactions or direct debits over others so that certain ones don’t bounce which may be more important to you/vital that they are paid on time.
I like this idea. Assiging your DD’s an order so that the mortgage gets paid before the gym membership seems like a no brainer.
The only thing I can say against it is, I’m not sure your bank is the one deciding the order of the payments. Surely that’s triggered by whoever is collecting the DD, and when? So if company X collects at midnight and company Y collects at 1am, X will win every time.
Agreed,
That’s the only flaw in the logic that I can think of. Not too sure of how the details work in the background. But maybe someone will know.
In one of my banks I have seen their systems and all the days DDs are in a batch and released by staff manually with a few keystrokes. They will often process them out of order to get the optimal number thru when you short of funds
You are allowed to put money aside for bills in a future app (the pots). I hope that you can just ring-fence (assign) money to them to automatically take it when needed and not need use the main account balance for them. That means items which I haven’t ring-fenced will use the main balance or bounce. Obviously you could reclaim the ring-fenced money if you wanted too and if there wasn’t enough money in the ring-fence part would then use your balance or bounce if not allowed too. Pretty much like a second account… 
.
I’m not sure how this would work with their BACS agreements. It might go against their policy to return a DD if there is money in the account, but the user has ringfenced it and not specifically cancelled the DD.