It really isn’t wild. Vulnerable people in society need to be protected and most people don’t take advantage of that and most would also agree that simply stumping your toe would not make you vulnerable.
I really don’t see why you have an issue with supporting those who are vulnerable.
I think there needs to be a clear and educated hold period (x hours) for new payees to try and prevent the speed of it all. Especially if it’s over say x amount.
I do see a problem of people taking no responsibility or worse scammers doing it on purpose to effectively double their money.
Everyone is protected by numerous warnings (before we get to common sense). I think the problem is that it has been deemed that the warnings are not enough.
there needs to be a clear and educated hold period (x hours) for new payees to try and prevent the speed of it all. Especially if it’s over say x amount.
Yep, an algorithm that it will get held if it exceeds a certain amount or % of current balance. Which can be bypassed by calling into the bank (good luck with that with Monzo) and convincing them that the transaction is real in order to release the funds immediatly.
Which is what the article says. Banks aren’t meant to refuse a refund based solely on those warnings. Clearly something more needs to be done, but none of them banks seem to be doing anything differently.
I’m a big fan of some of Monzo’s ideas for their compliance when participation in this scheme becomes mandatory later this year and they too would be on the hook for refunding these transactions.
Ignoring the first screenshot, which are just more tailored scared screens, they are good approaches at mitigation:
The warnings themselves are fine too, IMO. The issue is the overzealousness in throwing them up. Monzo knows who my mom is. They don’t need to throw up payee/transfer warnings every time I go to send her money. Maybe the first time, sure. And then put it in an escrow like hold for a few hours. But after? It’s just not necessary, nor likely unless someone’s holding her chihuahua at gun point.
I’ve had alsorts, the main one always comes to mind someone (no history just a frequent complainer) decided to continually laugh about going to kill themselves over a £40 refund that was rejected (proven they spent the money but claiming fraud anyway).
While yes all necessary precautions were taken while handling it, police were called while still on the phone, turned up, she’s sat there watching tv having a brew, no knife in the vicinity.
They were exit from the bank pretty quick after this.
So, yeah, I’ve heard a lot and can generally pull the bs from the real.
People will try anything.
Obvs the Starling above isn’t relative, but you never forget the ridiculous ones.
5 Likes
andrew_fishy
(Biggest horse fanatic in Leeds)
5268
First direct do that, you can’t send more than 1 payment to a new payee in the first 24 hours
Also, when you add in the ‘check the name on the account with the destination bank’ as well, you can add in that if it fails that test, it does just automatically go into a 24 hour hold somewhere - no matter the value unless you contact the bank and manually confirm the details (even if it’s just raising a chat request in the app itself.
Well the Mrs opened up her starling account yesterday so seem to be taking on new customers at least. But I do recall others saying they couldn’t open accounts.
Maybe it’s the fact it’s a brand new account is why the review is happening.