Monzo Bank getting a kicking on 'Watchdog'

Zero_Sum

colsten wrote: »

Is there perhaps a corresponding higher number of accepted applications at Monzo? As they don't carry out a full credit check at the time of application.

People who have their accounts frozen and don't have a backup bank account would find themselves in the same predicament, with any bank.

They may well be in the same predicament but that wasnt what I wad refering to. It was Monzo's attitude. They could show a bit of compassion towards the situation.

born_again

worried_jim wrote: »

Tbut didn't one of the complaints say that she was having her husbands wages paid into her account (as a consequence couldn't pay their rent) that could be classed as an account being used by a third party which will probably go against the T&C's and will therefore trigger a review.

Sea Shell.
Clearly you do not work for a bank.
Or something like that would trigger "Why is Mr paying in HIS wages into HER account" That smacks of He cant get a bank account, again triggers WHY? so gets her to open one for him and he uses it.
I have seen this and we HAVE TO REPORT. If we do not then we could be pulled aside and reprimanded for failing to report unusual activity. Which can lead to the bank being fined and you sacked...
Tell the customer why and you can add up to 5 years in Jail.....

You also have to remember that banks have to report to other countries tax authorities FATCA. So the above case could be a foreign national trying to avoid tax. Again that could be a reason why they do not want a account of their own.
May be a political exposed person and again avoiding banking regulations.

As to Monzo triggering more blocks than other banks. Simple, they do less background checks. Have no way of getting someone to go into a branch to prove who they are. So are a prime target for people of dubious background.
Think how easy it is to get someones ID, then a picture added to a driving licence etc.. Acc opened by a 3rd party...

As to people having to borrow of friends/family and use food banks.. There are many people that do that all the time.

born_again

Jolbc1993 wrote: »

Amazing people are still making excuses for Monzo. No doubt those are investors who have finacial reasons to big up monzo when its clearly not 'just following procedures' bbc aren't going to put their name to it on a whim

You jest of course.
Again you can not work in the banking sector and understand the raft of regulations we have to work under.
Would not be the 1st time Watchdog has got it wrong.

When you think Monzo have over 2 million account holders. Then the number of cases they picked on is so small, it is almost fake news.
But then again that you have to remember this program only survives by viewing figures alone. So getting hold of something like this makes headlines.
People closing accounts on the basis of this is a joke... Look back over old programs and how many other banks have been on. Or holiday companies. Yet people still use them.:beer:

photome

Jolbc1993 wrote: »

Amazing people are still making excuses for Monzo. No doubt those are investors who have finacial reasons to big up monzo when its clearly not 'just following procedures' bbc aren't going to put their name to it on a whim

I have no affiliation with Monzo and don’t even use them , I do use starling and Revolut which are similar I believe.

But your bit about the BBC not putting their name to things on a whim made me laugh, a good proportion of the things on watchdog are just sensationalism god knows how they make it to a consumer program

The_Urbanite

Zero_Sum wrote: »

And? Its high compared to high street banks which was the comparison

I haven't seen any figures to back that up and they're unlikely to be released. It may well be true however for reasons outlined by other posters - it's a lot easier to people to get an account for nefarious purposes and game the sign up process. Other fintechs are ridiculed for asking for things like image or video verification during the sign up, but it's the next best thing perhaps if no branches are available for face to face verification.

All of that said, for the end consumer, it doesn't matter why their account has been frozen, or why it takes so long for it to be resolved. But this is a customer service issue that's impossible to sugar coat due to the laws involved.

I've just watched the relevant Watchdog feature and think it was an unfair story to run with. The banks have their hands tied when it comes to commenting on suspicious activity on accounts. All people want to hear is "here's your money back" - the bank is simply going to get lambasted for saying anything else, even if they attempt to provide constructive advice while the NCA investigate.

It also wasn't fair that the financial crime solicitor failed to mention that the NCA can require a further 31 (not 28) days to investigate after the initial 7 day period. At no point should he have intimated that it should be done and dusted at their end after 7 days. The NCA is operated by people and sometimes it's them who gets things wrong when looking into accounts thus holding things up unnecessarily.

As for the customers, the sympathy stories should be put aside to one moment. Nobody except Monzo, the NCA (sometimes) and perhaps the customers know why their accounts were frozen. It could be anything - transactions at certain types of merchant at certain times of day, transactions at known Dark Web merchants or other high risk merchants, rapid loading then emptying of the account, transfers to and from flagged individuals, illicit use of the account (one of them suggested he was getting money from a "client", business use is prohibited), indications that the account is being used by someone other than the named individual(s), anomalous transactions in a distant country and so on.

Ultimately Watchdog shouldn't be running features based on conjecture.

I never used to be interested in this stuff, but there are some financial institutions out there where the AML teams need to be challenged for lack of knowledge and the way they do things.

Chino

The_Urbanite wrote: »

The banks have their hands tied when it comes to commenting on suspicious activity on accounts.

The problem with Monzo is that it is evidently classifying perfectly normal behaviour as suspicious. This is the problem when there are no standards regarding identifying suspicious behaviour. Banks are free to apply their own rules and processes, however ill-conceived.

The_Urbanite wrote: »

The NCA is operated by people and sometimes it's them who gets things wrong when looking into accounts thus holding things up unnecessarily.

All the more reason for banks to take great care before referring transactions to this NCA. It is not something that can be left to algorithms, AI and inexperienced fraud and risk teams.

The_Urbanite wrote: »

As for the customers, the sympathy stories should be put aside to one moment. Nobody except Monzo, the NCA (sometimes) and perhaps the customers know why their accounts were frozen. It could be anything

The problem that many Monzo customers have encountered is that this "anything" is generally Monzo's incompetence.

The_Urbanite wrote: »

one of them suggested he was getting money from a "client", business use is prohibited

Where do the Monzo Terms and Conditions say that "business use is prohibited"? In any case, how do you know that the customer doesn't have a business account?

The_Urbanite

Chino wrote: »

The problem with Monzo is that it is evidently classifying perfectly normal behaviour as suspicious. This is the problem when there are no standards regarding identifying suspicious behaviour. Banks are free to apply their own rules and processes, however ill-conceived.


All the more reason for banks to take great care before referring transactions to this NCA. It is not something that can be left to algorithms, AI and inexperienced fraud and risk teams.


The problem that many Monzo customers have encountered is that this "anything" is generally Monzo's incompetence.


Where do the Monzo Terms and Conditions say that "business use is prohibited"? In any case, how do you know that the customer doesn't have a business account?

There was no evidence at all that "perfectly normal" behaviour was being classified as suspicious. What was shown was people mostly claiming to have no idea what prompted the account suspension. It is very difficult to judge without further information.

I fully agree that financial institutions should take care before submitting Suspicious Activity Reports. When my account was frozen by Monzo a couple of times, there was a message to get in contact with them and when I clarified the activity, they unfroze the account. The auto block doesn't necessarily lead to them submitting a report. If the answers are unsatisfactory or they have a good reason to believe that transactions are suspicious then they are correct to submit a report.

Business use certainly used to be prohibited on personal current accounts and this is still shown in the current FAQs - Can I use my Monzo current account as a business account?. As it's a show for consumers it's fair to assume he's a consumer and not a business user.

brianposter

The_Urbanite wrote: »

There was no evidence at all that "perfectly normal" behaviour was being classified as suspicious.

However there is evidence even on this thread that bank staff regard as suspicious what many customers consider to be straightforward and rational use of their bank accounts.
In particular there seems to be a failure to distinguish between "money laundering" and other unexpected usage of a bank account.

phillw

18cc wrote: »

Either way the source of those funds have come from a suspicious account and so your account will be blocked while it is investigated

Unless they were also erroneously suspected of suspicious activity, in which case it wasn't from a suspicious source at all.

Monzo computer sounds a little paranoid

The_Urbanite wrote: »

There was no evidence at all that "perfectly normal" behaviour was being classified as suspicious.

There was no evidence of suspicious activity either.

Criminals and non criminals who have their bank account frozen are going to complain to watch whether they bank with Monzo or another bank.

I can't see why Watchdog would lie about Monzo having more complaints than other banks.

So either Monzo has more criminals than other banks, or Monzo is flagging up more accounts and then taking ages to deal with them.

If Monzo are allowed to freeze an account and then just take peoples money away with just a nod from the NCA then there is a serious problem with Monzo being so cautious. The NCA might not be aware that Monzo are flagging up things for no other reason than "received a payment".

None of it makes sense either, by freezing an account you are tipping off the account holder.

The_Urbanite wrote: »

rapid loading then emptying of the account

I had a transaction suspended once at a high street bank as I was moving money in and out while setting payees on a new account. First a small amount to make sure that I had got the sort code and account numbers correct, then a larger amount to satisfy their "you must pay in x amount to get the perk" which then came back out. That last transaction just disappeared and when I spoke to customer support I had one lie and say that it is because the receiving bank may have rejected it, then the next person I spoke to said that it may not have gone as a faster payment, the next call got dropped after being answered. After speaking to the other bank and they told me that they were lying to me, I phoned back and complained and got compensation. All sorted in one day. They may have been giving me the run around because of AML, but I could actually talk to someone.

Monzo sound like that activity would get a do not pass go, do not collect £200, go straight to jail. "Oh you have some explanation, yeah criminals always have explanations, you must be a criminal"

born_again

Just watched the piece about Monzo. Totally devoid of any real info from the customers. Only they blocked my account for no reason. Showed 5 people in a clip only stating a few words. Mentioned "A Lot" complaining, but no actual numbers.
One mentioned that husbands wage was not in the account over 5 weeks later and it was £750. If the account was blocked. Then odds on the payment will have been returned to source. So might well be with the employer.
Another mention a tax credit causing the block. And it was not in the account. If they felt it was not valid, it will be back with the taxman.
They mention Monzo saying approx 4 weeks to resolve. And surprise, surprise they were all in the 4 to 6 weeks...
I think the staff did a good job. At least they showed empathy with the customers and gave advise on where to go for help.
They could have just said "Still waiting to resolve and can't help"
A total joke, TBH. No wonder Monzo are upset about it.