Starling Bank Chat (Part 2)

It’s a difficult one because I understand the arguments of people being panicked or not thinking straight, but ultimately I can’t disagree with anything @ndrw has said in that if you have been provided with a message not to share this code and you share it, there is only so much the bank could have done. “Never share this” and “your bank will never ask for this” are as clear as clear can be. If your bank was worried about the security of your account, they wouldn’t need your interaction to block it. It’s not like the bank staff are watching a screen with money being drained, frantically calling the customer so they can stop it, as if there’s just nothing the bank can do about it otherwise.

I also don’t really buy the argument that it’s new technology and people struggle, as at this point none of it is really new. Phone banking has been around since the 1980’s, internet banking the 1990’s, and I don’t believe that if someone phoned you up in 1996, when there would have been no way to verify it, saying “Hi, this is your bank, we need you to transfer money to this account to prevent it being stolen from your own account, as somehow we, your bank, cannot do anything about this risk ourselves”, that you’d have been any less suspicious of that than you would be today and would have happily done it. So the awareness of people phoning you up to scam you surely cannot be a new phenomenon that people are having to understand for the first time. More prevalent and devious, sure, but not new?

There’s other things in life where people ignore obvious warnings. People ignore warning lights on their car’s dashboard, people disconnect smoke alarms when they keep beeping, people ignore no entry signs and walk or drive across level crossings when there’s a barrier down and big red lights flashing. But you don’t blame the warning signs not being adequate, you blame the person for ignoring them. So if you’re using a banking app and there’s a clear message saying “do not share this with anyone, ever” and your decision is to share it, then you’ve chosen to ignore the safeguard the bank has put in place.

Even if you had to go in branch, take your birth certificate and a sample of DNA to conclusively prove without question that you are you, and you yourself are making that transaction, if the account you’re transferring the money to told you they’re a Nigerian prince or it’s someone you met around the corner claiming they’re from the RSPCA and need £5,000 from you, and you’ve still gone in and asked the bank to make the transfer, what more could they possibly do. So dialling it down from an extreme analogy to what we have, if they’re sending you codes covered in warning labels and you ignore them, physically what more can they do.

5 Likes

Didn’t starling make a big deal about signing up for a scheme to refund for authorised push payment fraud?

I am sure people criticised monzo for not signing up as well.

1 Like

Nice edit :+1::rofl:

Yeah it appears the scheme is pretty worthless for those that are frauded.

I totally think it’s the users fault in the strictest sense but I just mind all those starling fanboys criticising monzo for not always refunding when people were scammed even though it was their fault. Then there was all the ctisism for monzo not signing up for the scheme starling joined.

It appears Which thinks it’s worth more than is on the tin as well: What to do if you’re the victim of a bank transfer (APP) scam - Which?

If a bank is signed up to the code, as well as reimbursing APP scam victims, it must have also committed to take steps to protect customers

I mean most bank apps have lots of scam info in app now if that’s all the scheme really covers if you don’t follow the warnings then it adds nothing.

Kinda surprised how weak sauce it is given the big deal that monzo didn’t join before. It seems like it was a back patting exercise for certain banks to claim they were gong to be more likely to refund and were their for customers when it basically meant they would add warnings to the apps and if you ignored you get nothing.

Keep trying to twist your words, your making noise out of nothing.

1 Like

No. You’re not going to believe them, and it’s not just us nerds, because these warnings are everywhere, from bank leaflets to web and mobile screens to TV ads. “I’m not a nerd so I can’t do it/know it” is a poor cop-out excuse.

I may sound harsh but I am in Computing education, and feel very strongly about people who won’t do anything to educate themselves and keep themselves up to date with the most important knowhows of modern living.

2 Likes

Lots of people kicking off regarding starling blocking all payments and transfers to do with crypto with out giving out a warning

2 Likes

Wait until the gambling industry starts a £100pm cap and then you need to verify your income/affordability… that’s gonna send people wild.

Makes sense though, would save people millions, and the banks even more millions through addiction/abuse.

Starling can clearly afford the complaints :sweat_smile: it is all a risk though. Not clear if it’s specific platforms or just all types.

3 Likes

Their Twitter replies appear to indicate that it’s all card payments to crypto firms.

1 Like

Is this something that’s coming/likely to happen?

1 Like

I do also wonder though if there is a danger now of ‘Warning fatigue’. In the same way, do you really read the ‘We’re using Cookies’ every time you go to a website, if you’re constantly given a warning from your bank for everything you do, when you actually do need to be aware of them, you’ll just click through.

I’m sure there’s got to be a smarter way for banks to cover this? If a new payee is setup and above X amount is then attempted to transfer, do additional checks (ask for password verification again?)

2 Likes

Someone I know who’s very close to the ins and outs of it all explained it to me.

I think it’s a good thing, if you can verify your funding then it’s all good…

Just stops those who really can’t afford it, using their full wages/benefits up on gambling then moaning to the banks they can’t/wont help them with their bills or food or milk for their kids.

It’s very common to see it, along with things.like taking out a £5k loan and within 3 days it’s spent on bet365 with no return.

It’s sad really.

But save going off track :sweat_smile: Starling are headed the right way in terms of crypto I feel.

8 Likes

I think it’s a little bit nanny-state for my liking. Where does it stop after that? Limit my Tesco spend to £100 unless I prove I’m not buying beer or cigarettes? No McDonalds because I’ve had 17 this month already and I might be obese?

I realise gambling costs people their lives and you’re a lot closer to it and have seen the impact it has on people. It’s not even something that would affect, I just think it’s a slippery slope.

Will these sites be able to accurately track my affordability? What does £50k living at home with no bills look like vs £50k with a family of 7 to fund?

(I realise I’ve got sidetracked into the hypothetical)

10 Likes

My thoughts are, the mild inconvenience of demonstrating affordability may help you think twice instead of it being so easy to just spend spend spend.

It’ll likely throw in some genuine questions about your situation.

Football kits was another thing considering a ban :eyes:

3 Likes

You mean as kit sponsors?

1 Like

Wasn’t clear on if it were a sponsors thing or kit in general.

Be a very dull game if everyone had the same colour on :sweat_smile:

1 Like

https://www.fintechfutures.com/2022/10/starling-bank-tops-2000-employees-opens-new-london-office/

2 Likes

Apparently new savings product coming soon

17 Likes

Unless it’s competitive, I don’t see it attracting my funds tbh.

2.75% is my current benchmark.

7 Likes

Santander?

Yup. One of the lucky ones.

No need to entertain anything below 2.75% as a result :grin:

1 Like