Shared Pots

(Jas ) #165

Thanks for the response. Looking forward to the share pots feature.

As this is still in development. Do you have an estimated time line when it might go live

(Jack) #166

Hi Jas, I moved your posts to the shared pots thread to keep everything in one place. I don’t believe there’s been an ETA shared yet unfortunately…

(Eduard V) #167

As of 29th of August 2018, is this feature available on the App yet?

(MikeF) #168


(Tony) #169

The short answer: No.

The long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Seriously, though, they’ve just had 3 months of implementing (the majority of) the Big List, so I suspect it’s now back on their to-do list, after sorting out the lag issues…

(Chris) #170

Would be great if you are with friends/family, who, for the sake of simplicity, all also have Monzo, and you can request everyone contribute equally to a pot, then we can all spend from that pot - ie bar tab, tab for when you’re on holiday together etc


  • request money into pot from multiple people, equal split (maybe just specify the total and Monzo splits it)
  • all physical/in-person transactions (so, not scheduled transactions, transfers etc) from each person would come from the pot until it’s depleted, if not enough money in the pot, decline the transaction.
  • possible option auto top up of pot from each contributor when running low, only if all accept that, and all have enough funds.

(Jamie 🏳️‍🌈) #171

No one, including Monzo, has actually explained how shared pots is supposed to work in the event a bunch of people pay into one, then the pot ‘controller’ dies.

The only way I see it happening is if you allow funds to be ringfenced within your own account, and then click to accept the ‘controller’ drawing down on the funds. But then if you can just unringfence the funds whenever you want before the funds are withdrawn, there seems no point.


I think folk are overthinking this. A pot has to belong to someone - if I set up a shared pot, then I assume that it’s part of my account, and that I’m giving others permission to pay in, view (and maybe withdraw) money - but legally it still sits on my balance sheet. If I die then it’s just treated like the rest of my assets.

Same as if I’m in the pub with my mates and we start a kitty. Whoever’s holding it could drop dead (or run off, whatever)…

I’ve no insider info, but anything else would seem (to me at least) to be significantly overcomplicating things. Maybe when shared pots were mooted as a solution to joint accounts, then there could have been a push to some form of shared liability, but I think the general outcry of “we want normal joint accounts” has closed that door (and possibly some more inventive solutions :frowning: ).

Anyway, just my views. Monzo haven’t officially announced any joint pots - or the problem that they would fix by having them yet. So this is just speculation - and others will likely have very different views. :man_shrugging:

(Jamie 🏳️‍🌈) #173

I actually think most folk are underthinking this. Wanting Monzo to invent something that they perceive to be a truly joint pot (“yeah we can all pay in our £3000 for the flights you’ll book on Monday”) without thinking of the legal consequences (“your £3000 is now part of late Bob’s estate, it’ll go to his wife”)

But being as a large proportion of society make no provision for their own death, it doesn’t surprise me.


I (politely) disagree :wink:

In your example I don’t see how this is different to giving Bob £3000 cash (or transferring £3k to his account) just before his untimely death.

What I mean, for the avoidance of doubt, is that joint pots as I’ve outlined would be exactly the same as that currently happens. Now, you’re right that lots of people don’t think about the legal consequences - but these are exactly the same in these examples.

What I mean by overthinking is thinking really hard about the slimmest of possibility - and decreasing risk appetite from what’s completely common today. What I think you mean by underthinking is a lack of appreciation of the risk, or the impact of actions. I humbly suggest that these are both different things and can co-exist happily. :slight_smile:

(Jamie 🏳️‍🌈) #175

I think we’re actually on the same page. I’m saying legally the money in a newly–invented joint pot would belong to just one person (so in effect you’ve just transferred the money to Bob, same as handing over the cash) but I reckon most people would be astounded to learn upon poor Bob’s untimely death that their contribution to the joint pot now made up part of Bob’s estate and would be going to his next of kin, because, they’d say, “but we have a joint pot, some of that money is mine”. I think folk would wrongly assume it would come back to them.

I was pleased to see, after all the hot air about Monzo wanting to really look at conventional joint accounts and see how it could do them differently the Monzo Way, that in fact it went ahead and just made…a joint account, one which complied with established probate law.

I’m quite chuffed with my ringfence/draw down permissions idea above though :wink: Monzo you can have that :joy::joy:


This is the type argument that I just don’t get - the suggestion that Monzo somehow wanted to ignore the law!

I think joint accounts were created for three reasons: 1) the lack of joint accounts was causing take up problems, 2) there wasn’t the bandwidth to fundamentally rethink the problem - including addressing the legal issues and 3) joint accounts were reasonably simple to develop.

Unpopular view alert: I kinda think they were the wrong long term strategic call, though we’re probably justified on a short/medium term basis. I think they will complicate the financial hub model and possibly break some future stuff.

But I might be wrong - whatever the truth, I suspect Monzo will embrace them and their presence will subtly change what Monzo evolves into…

I think a lot of it is about terminology and presentation. Don’t call it a joint pot, call it a kitty or something and put an info screen/disclaimer up to be clear where the money legally lies. Discourage folk from using it like joint accounts. Establish total balance / transaction limits. I just don’t see, handled properly, how this could be an issue.

I’d be much more worried about the folk rushing to open joint accounts without really understanding the liability or the impact. Much more significant, in my view…

(Daniel O Williams) #177

Any update on shared pots or bits being available for joint accounts?

(MikeF) #178

As the answer to a similar question a week ago stated, No. Nothing has come out recently.

(Micky) #179

No news or update yet. It wasn’t mentioned in the work being done for September either so could be waiting awhile :no_entry_sign::soon:

(Frank) #180

I think if the money ultimately belongs to one person (the pot owner) then using the term joint or shared would be flawed. As it gives the perception of a collaborative account.

So either needs to be share access to your pot (belongs to you but grant others access or actually be a shared pot (everyone is equal access/rights). And all legalities will need to be considered before launch.

(Frank) #181

The issue will exist as soon as joint overdrafts become a thing. As one party can apply for one and use it all but then it affects the other party as a result.

(MikeF) #182

It shouldn’t be the same for overdrafts since you’ve already entered that joint relationship with one another. Either the appropriate level of trust is already there or the account shouldn’t have been opened.

(Frank) #183

And you need to have that same trust when sharing any financial product.

(Jamie 🏳️‍🌈) #184

I agree. But sharing a joint account/overdraft with one other person (usually partner) having already agreed that funds or debt is both parties’ separate responsibility (with established common law to back it up) is very different to the concept some people seem to want here with shared pots; for everyone in the office to bung a tenner in for Geoff’s birthday drinks. That is a much more informal arrangement.