Don’t businesses have enough costs without having to subsidise personal accounts? I’d be totally against that
I don’t have a business account so I am unsure what the costs are. Could you do a mock of what all the costs are?
If businesses can’t afford or don’t want the costs they can go elsewhere nothing is free - besides the market. They have a choice of who they pick as a provider.
I don’t think you can simply say that Starling Business customers are subsidising Personal customers. The Business Account is mostly fee free, unlike the majority of business accounts. The cash deposit fee for business customers is also lower than most others charge.
Don’t forget, Starling have a number of revenue streams that means they don’t need to charge for things that some other banks may need to. Very shrewd of Anne.
I think Starling should be applauded for providing this service to personal current account holders for free. They haven’t skimped either - they could easily have gone for the option that credits the account next day. Free, instant cash deposits - well done Starling
I don’t disagree that Starling have been shrewd in who they charge what for at the moment - at the end of the day somebody is subsidising somebody mostly for any service to be “free”
Don’t you need a personal account to open a business one? (or if you sign up for a business one first, you can’t open a personal with them). So I guess a workaround is to deposit cash into your personal account and move it over.
I saw a tweet from some time ago that they fixed that issue - so business account holders with no personal account can now open one.
I have a Starling Account purely to pay cash in via, and if Starling want to manage my account is empty apart for a few hours a year so I can pay cash through it then cool!
Cash is expensive, I work with a range of public services who are trying to move away from cash, they don’t want the security risks, the hassle of cash handling, having a truck with guys in riot gear to pick it up from the office.
There’s enough banking options out there if you don’t want to pay the £1, and still use Monzo as your main bank.
Morally questionable but as long as you’re acting within the T&Cs then good luck to you.
Wouldn’t describe it as morally questionable, just using what’s available, if Starling (or N26, NatWest, or HSBC UK etc etc) want to offer a ‘free service’ I’ll use it for that reason. There’s nothing in the T&Cs which say you must deposit £xxx per year/moth to do it.
why was @danmullen post flagged ? - this is getting silly if you flag posts for no reason, the post didn’t break any community guidelines @cookywook this isn’t creating a community where different opinions are both valid opinions and actually reinforces the “Monzo cult” argument
didn’t see anything wrong with @danmullen post at all, it’s a fair question, and I think I’ve given a fair response. Hopefully it’s unflagged by the flagger
Nice move forward, but ultimately the limits are too extreme for anyone’s only current account. People still buy/sell lots of things for cash, like cars…
£1000 over 6 months isn’t enough.
Not snapping at anyone here but I’ve never seen the fascination of buying second hand cars with cash?
Why not use a bank transfer like most other digital transactions?
By “morally questionable”, I wasn’t being discourteous to @Sachaz - I did actually clarify that he’s acting within the terms and conditions. I was thinking along the lines of those people who signed up to Monzo purely to use them as a travel card. Some people acted within the terms but used the service so much that Monzo had to introduce fees for everyone (above a £200 monthly cap).
I was trying to say that certain features are clearly aimed at certain customers, i.e. those that actually bank with Monzo, Starling, et al. No rules being broken but taking advantage of something that’s been introduced for the benefit of “real” customers could lead to the service not being free or available long term.
absolutely nothing offensive, discourteous, abusive or a violation of guidelines as far as I can see
Sure, but often one of the two people involved in a sale will want to use cash. And i don’t turn down buyers at asking price who want to pay cash. But no offense taken at your comment. Just not sure it’s relevant. The end result is that these limits are rather limiting
Came to say the same thing.
Alarm bells would ring if a seller came to me wanting to pay £1,000’s in cash for an item I was selling. Then from a different perspective… If I was the one wanting to purchase a valuable item I’d only do this via bank transfer (or card payment if allowed) so that I have added proof of purchase.
Do bank transfers offer any more protection over cash in these scenarios?
Yes it is proof that you gave them the money.
Anyone can scribble on a bit of paper as a “receipt” but there is still nothing connecting the two.
Source: I’ve seen plenty of Judge Rinder / Judge Judy