Yes reading it closer it does sound like it. Fingers crossed…
It it was implemented I’d hope there might be a ‘nickname’ field that we could use that way we could call it ‘joint account’ or ‘saving sccount’ rather than just having 3 accounts all saying my name and me forgetting which is which!
I see no reason why middle name would be required, and even so a last name match should trigger the logic to display the full name for your confirmation and not outright reject.
It seems a shame to completely ignore this feature for the edge cases which I’m sure the bank can fix in the implementation. Monzo already have a legal name and preferred name, surely both can be accepted?
Need for consistency is one of the big things highlighted in the report. Things like middle names have still be to be agreed upon - some people use their middle name over their first so how should that be handled. Should Toby and tony be a complete mismatch or a close match? How should maiden names be handled etc
Slightly off topic, but when using PayM (with my old legacy bank), once you select the contact the next screen will display their name which is registered with the PayM system.
So even if the contact is ‘Jon ’ on my phone, ‘Jonathon Doe’ appears on the next screen to verify whom you are sending money to.
I think it’s pretty neat, and I’m sure its possible with faster payments. (I spoke to a friend who works for BACS about this, and he said it would fairly simple to implement, as long as banks were compliant with the standards - which they rarely are at the best of times)
I was originally okay with the idea of my name being disclosed when someone goes to pay me. But then I thought:
- I don’t really want my whole name displayed (middle name phobic)
- I don’t want people scraping this data, or harvesting using APIs. And I don’t want captchas in the way.
- I don’t like what this would mean if I ever wanted/needed to change my name.
I’d be interested in more data about the problem that they’re trying to fix and whether, say, focusing on business accounts would fix it. (the info might be out there, I just haven’t googled yet…)
Reading the consultation pack it does sound like quite a few things have still to be decided upon. I’m not 100% convinced this will ever get off the ground imho
A GDPR nightmare
The underlying idea is a good idea but, as you say, there are some creases to iron out. It would be good to be able to give the account itself a name and refer to that. This would help distinguish between multiple accounts (e.g. Tom savings vs Tom Monzo), as well as allowing those who use a different public name to their legal name to do so. This would be useful for trans people who haven’t yet legally changed their name, as well as for people who go by a different name to their legal name due to unusual shortenings, nicknames that are used all the time, etc.
The whole problem they’re trying to solve is bad people naming their fraud accounts ‘Legitimate Solicitors plc’ or ‘Friendly Local Builder and Sons’ when they actually ‘Evil Fraudsters Ltd.’
I absolutely appreciate the trans argument, and think the issue would be handled well using a first initial and surname.
But it seems to me everyone is saying “GDPR” but ignoring the fact that you already hold ‘identifiable information’ in the account details you’re using and (presumably) want to pay the correct person. I can’t think of a situation where you’d be paying–in to an account without knowing the name of the person you’re paying.
GDPR allows for the use of personal data for legitimate interests. Credit reference agencies can skirt around GDPR for “legitimate interests” because they are:
- Helping prevent and detect crime and fraud and anti-money laundering services and verify identity.
- Complying with and supporting compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.
I’m sure a bank could claim the same with these potential regulations. They could also just change their terms and conditions too to state that you agree to have future checks done on you.
Surname (with or without initial) seems like a reasonable compromise, allowing some degree of flexibility and privacy while giving senders a greater deal of confidence. I’d still like to see some sort of additional customisable name though to help disambiguate multiple personal accounts, accounts by people with the same surname (my parents have the same initial, for example), etc.
You do that in your banking app. You set up a payment to J Smith and label it ‘mum’ in the reference field, and label the other J Smith as ‘dad’. Those references don’t have to be appended onto the actual account name by the account holder.
People overreact to GDPR, it’s actually relatively simple.
- Get people to consent to you collecting their data, or have another lawful reason to do so regardless of their consent. If people have to consent, make sure they can later change their mind (e.g. close their account, unsubscribe from a mailing list, etc)
- Let people know what information you’re collecting and who ‘you’ are (Are you actually a group of companies? Do you outsource certain jobs which act on user data?)
- Tell people what purpose you’re using their data for, then stick to it. Don’t get them to set a recovery email then send them spam.
- Don’t keep unnecessary data or keep data for longer than necessary - e.g. if someone deletes their account you might keep it inactive for a little while in case it was an error, but after that, you should delete it permanently
- Seek to correct personal data if you find out it’s incorrect, and allow users to request changes to incorrect information
- Protect personal data - don’t share it as a plaintext file on pastebin for a start
It seems to me that a good solution would be to use the first and last name by default then have the option to change your public name with human checks at the banks end where necessary.
- If you change your name to a part of your legal name, it goes through automatically (so people using e.g. middle names or shortenings of first names can get through quickly)
- If you use a common substitution for your name (the bank just needs a list of these to check against) e.g Bob instead of Robert it also goes through automatically
- If it doesn’t hit either of the above, your request goes through to a human. A human can very easily check that it’s not a fake business name and can ask for more information or evidence if needed, similar to the way Facebook asks for evidence that you “use that name in everyday life”
Workload shouldn’t be too high as most people will not change it and if they do many will fall under the first two points.
So this is being delayed, presumably because the big banks are either struggling with the technology or with the timing:
The system sounds great and I like the fact that its a warning that the name doesn’t match, not a block on the payment so you can still pay even if it doesn’t match at all.
I just read this and it’s sparked my curiosity even though it’s an old post. Why would it hurt?
If someone who is transgender (or not) wanted to be called something else it’s beyond simple and there’s no cost involved (other than a piece of paper) to change a name. Any delay to changing it is surely their own issue?
But still, the big banks are supposedly fighting back against the “insurgents”
If they’re struggling so badly with this it does make you wonder though!
Perhaps @Rika could confirm that this is something that Monzo themselves would have had ready in time, to give a feeling for what a delay really represents
This is more the territory of our Financial Crime and Open Banking/API teams but we were aiming to have this ready in time.
Thanks for confirming