I did consider them along with Kite but I really really didnt want to give my kids details to a none bank.
I’m pretty sure that at least with Apple Pay (not sure about Google Pay) Apple themselves have a minimum age of 13 to use it which might be why Staring Kite (for 6-15 year olds) doesn’t support it.
I’m assuming (although I haven’t checked) that the minimum age to open a standard Starling Current Account is 16 years old if the Kite account only gets you to 15? It’ll be nice if they had a good onboarding process to ‘graduate’ your kids Kite account into their own Starling current account when they reached 16.
(The Revolut <18 account is for Teens aged 13 and over.)
1 Like
Also - checking around and GoHenry also have a ‘Kids’ and then a different ‘Teens’ card with the Teens card having Apple Pay.
HyperJar also have the same setup - a ‘Kids’ card and then a ‘Teens’ card for 13+ which includes Apple/Google Pay
Starling is a bank, so not sure what you mean by none bank? Maybe I’ve misunderstood something here.
Yes it’s totally personal preference. I personally find Kite works very well and it’s a good introduction to basic banking.
Sorry I was replying to Carlo (top right of my post)
Discourse doesn’t let you quote a full post.
1 Like
Unweaving on the replies, I think l33t was replying to Carlo about Revolut who have their <18 card - not Starling.
Revolut is not (currently) an ‘official’ bank and don’t have a banking licence (because they keep being very naughty boys!).
Going back to Starling and Apple/Google Pay - I suspect they’ll never introduce it to their Kite accounts unless Apple and Google remove the minimum age limited for using it (which is a bit of a weird clause to be honest - if they have a phone, why shouldn’t they be able to use Apple/Google pay with their own card? Is it something technical with Biometrics maybe?). For those banks (or non-Banks like Revolut and HyperJar) who do offer Apple/Google pay on their ‘Teen’ accounts - you also need to be 18 years old to get one of their ‘standard’ accounts whereas for Starling it’s only 16 years old.
If I were a Parent, looking at the options I’d be more interested in what happens when my child reaches the maximum age for that account (ie - 16 for Starling, 18 for others). Does that account get ‘upgraded’ to a ‘full version’ account with the same provider (and so all spending data/statements etc show up in the new account) or does it get mothballed and they’ve got to apply for a new account from scratch? Also, are you happy with them having a ‘full’ current account at 16 with Starling which you’ll no longer be able to monitor or would you rather keep an overview of what they’re doing with their account up until they’re 18?
Surely that’s the kids decision, not yours.
As for revolut and hyper, while the only difference is protection of up to £85k if they fail, and looks slim likelihood of revolut failing, what else puts you off, if it has everything you need?
2 Likes
If they are under 18, parents can make decisions.
2 Likes
That’s not exactly Apple’s or Google’s rule - it’s down to the laws on data processing for under-13s. There are a big set of additional restrictions and limitations on data processing and data holding about under-13s. It’s why the youngest age at which you can set up your own google accout at all is 13. Below that, a parent has to set it up for you.
So if you’re, say, 11, you can’t actually hold a google account of your own with which to log into the phone, create a google wallet account, and add the card to. Children’s accounts are managed through the parents’ accounts, not by the child, and I can only imagine that once you’re dealing with financial records, Google (or Apple) would NOT want to be the ones determining whether a particular adult actually had the legal right to have access to a child’s bank account. I suspect it would take a lot more validation than ticking a box during the online application to say “yeah, I’m totally Bobby’s dad”.
1 Like
Fair, but if the kid wanted to just go open a Starling account on their own accord, at 16, does parent force to close it?
Or hide them from the fact they can open their own just so they can carry on controlling their account how they deem fit instead.
It’s only choice that should prevent such doing their own thing, and Starling gives that choice.
If lending was involved (which is not until 18), then it’s more an education situation vs saying no I will manage your finances just the same way they can.
1 Like
That’s the choice of a parent. If you would do it as an education situation that’s fine (I probably would too), but if not they are still under 18, a parent decides how to parent their child.
Rules for the banks might not need 16-18 to have a parent but parents still should have their say in parenting.
It would be interesting to know if they can force things though.
1 Like
True, extreme for banking vs packing up and leaving home to go to USA (broad example).
I grew up having as much freedom as I needed so that’ll be where my view comes from.
I don’t believe 16-17 should continually be managed as a child, more prepared into adulthood then they’re ready for what comes next.
3 Likes
I don’t disagree. Just think this is a parental choice to do so.
3 Likes
Short answer is no.
At age 16, you do not need parental consent to open a bank account, and since the details, including even the existence of the account, would be personal, financial information, then data protection law should actually ban the bank from telling the parents that the account exists without explicit concent from the child to do so.
The parents certainly don’t have a right to block such an account, and even attempting to do so might potentially be legally classifiable as abuse, due to it’s controlling nature. (NOT a lawer, but it would be abusive and illegal at 18, just not sure at 16)
Though I agree, utterly, that with good parenting, the situation should never come up, and the parents should be actively interested in, and involved with, such decisions.
4 Likes
I suppose there could also be a factor in how the child ‘earns’ any money for the account.
If, like when I was growing up, my pocket money was the £2.50 a week* that I got from my parents for doing the washing up then maybe they could insist on it being paid directly to one of these ‘Child’ bank accounts. But if it was from the child going out and earning their own money, like the £20 a week* I got in my first supermarket job, then that should be payable into whatever account the child chooses.
I’m not a parent and will never have a kid so I’ve not looked too much into these accounts - but I’m assuming that while a Parent might be able to view them and easily top them up, they don’t have the ability to withdraw any money out of them?
[*] I suspect both of these values are a bit higher these days…
1 Like
It looked like Wirecard was solid yet it went to the wall. The German regulator was even threatening legal action because the Financial Times said there was something amiss.
2 Likes
With Kite both the parent and child have control of the account and the adult can move money in and out of the account.
The other accounts I have for my child are in trust and I can choose whether they stay like that or convert over to a child’s account. It stays like that till they reach 18 where they gain full control.
In my case, we have frequent conversations about the accounts and child has an active say in much of that.
I do wish Apple pay or Google pay was available with Kite but sadly not. My child does love the independence of being able to go to the local shops and buying things. They can also choose to save their pocket money, so start to understand very basic banking.
1 Like
3 Likes
What do you mean by ?
3 Likes
Is that your new job? 
4 Likes