I’ve been getting these requests for months and have been ignoring them, but now I’m being told I’ll be cut off from my bank account if I don’t “update my details.”
I just want to put it out there that this statement:
“We’re not asking you these questions for marketing reasons
It helps us give you the right level of support”
…really doesn’t make sense. Knowing what level of support to give a client based on their income is a marketing reason, not a regulatory reason.
Just answer the questions?
Monzo are a regulated bank. They need to know things. And it’s still not marketing.
My understanding is that banks now have to do this as part of their anti money laundering checks. If your salary is, for example, 20k and there’s 100s of thousands going through your account then that’s a red flag.
I don’t know that for sure and can’t look it up right now, but that’s what I thought I knew at least.
Pretty much covered by this.
Support comes in many forms, but recognising potential fraud/laundering etc is just as important, if not more so.
I agree that recognizing fraud is important, and if this actually a requirement for money laundering regulations I will answer the questions. But the messaging they gave from the outset made me think they were using regulations as a cover to target customers for specific offers of “high-touch support” type services (which really is marketing).
It doesn’t.
It tells you when they know more they know how best to support you.
I agree that recognizing fraud is important, and if this actually a requirement for money laundering regulations I will answer the questions.
Well you have already said they plan to cut off your account - so your choices are binary - answer or get cut off.
What you think about the questions are irrelevant.
I’m not sure the wording that Monzo uses is particularly helpful, to be honest. It does make me think “how will this affect the support I’ll get?” and “is Monzo tiering support by income level? If so, how?”
A simple “we’re required to ask these questions of our customers” might be simpler.
It’s not that deep, you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill. Either answer it or don’t, if you don’t, see ya later Monzo.
You may disagree, but how customers think about their bank’s messaging is important, especially now that the barrier to switching banks is incredibly low.
Thanks for articulating better than I was able to. This was exactly how I felt when I read these messages.
Thanks for coming on here and talking about this, Lina. I think it’s important feedback.
I’m sorry you’ve had some, how should I put it, intemperate replies.
Yeah, the new banks are surprisingly terrible at this. I don’t know if they think the truth will put people off and close their account, but every single one of them is coy about it. This is either a half truth at best or an outright lie at worst, and I’m not comfortable with either.
If you probe them because you don’t buy it, they’ll tell you the real reason. But you shouldn’t have to.
If they asked me for this and stated that reason it would have me all 
too. Regulated or not, I don’t trust the statement, it sounds shady, and the fact they come over email screams SCAM!
I’ve said it before a few times, but I genuinely believe a good chunk of the Monzo closed my account folks who are adamant of no wrong doing will have been caught out by this AML stuff. You only get an email. Nothing in app. It’s easily missed, and if you do catch it, it reeks of a potential scam on first glance.
They didn’t used to tell you what would happen if you didn’t comply either. It used to be they asked for it, set a deadline, would log the non answer and put you on two months notice that they’re closing your account, with zero communication outside of email.
Had I not been on here, it’s the type of thing that I would probably just have ignored.
If they’d closed my account without follow-up or explanation I would have been shouting about it to everyone I knew.
This is explicitly outlawed under data protection laws. Monzo categorically aren’t doing this. Neither is any reputable business. If you tell any organisation you don’t want marketing, they must not send it to you.
I think you see this trend, of “bad copy” of technical stuff quite a lot.
A lot of places do it - banks, brands*, otherwise, in that they need to make sure things match their “tone of voice” or they can’t say it.
And like here things have been copywritten to a point where it causes more confusion than a plain English technical statement would.
I get the need for an “escalation” in the message in this case (hey you haven’t answered yet, there’s a reason where asking!) but the wording just comes across as… frankly naff.
I think a totally fair flag - hope they improve the wording for clarity.
*as an example, I used to write technical/legal info for food packaging. I once had an allergen statement of “made in a factory that also handles nuts”, turned into “because of how we make it, it might contain nuts”.
What if you’re earning £20K pa but you’re wealthy? You could be earning £20K but just love your job. I believe earnings are part of KYC.
In that scenario it wouldn’t be an issue - but @Peter_G said ‘going through your account’ not just having lots of money in the account.
Some horrible replies to the OP on here. They are right - the statement given doesn’t make sense. For a bank that (used to) pride itself on transparency and speaking in plain English, the text is very poorly written. That doesn’t change the fact that they have to do it.
the ususal suspects strike again
some people on here think this forum is just for them and how dare people come ask questions