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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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”.
8 Likes
Doug_hboy
(Always be alert because the World always needs lerts.)
17
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.
I had this email a few months ago and it said it was for regulatory reasons. I wonder why it’s been reworded.
I just found the email and it said (I’ve made it bold):
We’re not asking you these questions for marketing reasons. It’s a regulatory requirement that we hold relevant, up-to-date information about the customers we serve. It helps us give you the right level of support, and helps keep everyone safe.