We don’t even really know they really have been reviewed on a case by case basis, since we dont know the criteria. What we do know is that the couple of people we’ve heard from here have said they were refused. For all we know the policy may be to review them on a case by case basis, but unless someone’s broken their neck while on holiday and needs to pay to get home, it may well be a “no” in all cases. People are talking like “exceptional circumstances” and “case by case basis” had any certainty about it. As if I could speak to Megan and say “my case is genuine” and she’d say “Oh, well, get the card sent ASAP!” when the case by case basis may have been "On deathbed=Yes Anything else=No, this is all hypothetical because we’re not privy to the ins and outs of this situ. The only difference is now there is no question; you pays your money, you gets your card.
That doesn’t indicate they are free though. There’s nothing I can see, saying Starling didn’t review it on case by case basis and turn around and still request £60. Like there is nothing I can currently see that suggests they took the hit financially.
I think it’s a pretty safe assumption to make that replacement cards sent out to customers previously while abroad, were in fact, sent free of charge. In the interest of transparency, if it later materialised Starling had charged for them this whole subject would have been rendered somewhat moot, and @Megan_Caywood could be accused of being quite disingenuous with us. And that’s just something I do not believe Ms Caywood and the wider Team Starling could ever be accused of.
Do we know that they ever sent one out though?
Been out all night so just catching up.
I’d agree that it’s highly likely they were sent for free.
I’d be interested to know how many they sent in the past.
They were sent for free previously (as alluded to here, in our original discussion on whether we should introduce the feature with a fee:
I don’t have the numbers off hand, but do know it wasn’t something we would frequently do. This feature is meant to enable customers to have this feature on demand for a fee, not on a case-by-case basis, as per request!
A spare card that has no name would be quite good. A blank card that can be kept for emergencies and only added to the app when the other is lost. For people who use starling exclusively this could be useful.
Yep, can’t argue with that.
People asked for it to be consistent, and not “depending on the mood of a CS agent” -
Now it is.
Yep, that’s what i was trying to say in my waffle. Before there was uncertainty. Now there isn’t. Sound’s like a win win… albeit an expensive win…
Only a winner if you can afford it. If you’ve been mugged, robbed, or otherwise shocked through no fault of your own I’m unsure many victims of crime would consider themselves a ‘winner’.
I’m sure no victim of a crime would consider themselves a winner.
But you can always come up with an example for any policy where it doesn’t work for you.
Sadly, the victims of crime usually end up paying - Although I’d be interested to know if the £60 would be covered by travel insurance.
But again, make sure you have a spare card when you travel - I disagree that Starling shouldn’t encourage people to have other accounts or cards - It’s just good practice to protect yourself as much as possible when travelling.
Doesn’t Mastercard Global Service cover this exact scenario? Do Starling cards have the benefits of this? Having Mastercard issue a temporary card seems like the ideal situation.
It’s the last couple of posts that make we wonder whether Starling really is inclusive or exclusive. For those that think a £60 fee results in a winning scenario when an individual has likely been through a traumatic experience puts things into context: after all - it’s just sixty quid, isn’t it? The same applies for those that are travelling for a good part of the year and have lost their card down the back of a sofa while on their weekend retreat in Monaco. £60 is a mere drop in the ocean to them.
I would hope that if I ended up having been mugged, a little shell-shocked, and not knowing what to do, calling my bank and explaining the situation would result in me feeling reassured. Instead I will get something along the lines of “Yeah, I know you’ve just been robbed, but we’ll just rob you a little bit more for sixty quid and we’ll get you a new card sent out”.
Is that inclusive or exclusive?
That aside it still makes sense to carry a spare card: I do, but some won’t. I suggested an easy workaround to that predicament here.
I don’t think anyone has said £60 is a drop in the ocean (I’ve certainly never implied that, and I don’t remember anyone saying it that way).
The only people who I see going through this process, are those who are out of th country for an extended time - if you were away for a week on holiday, I’m not sure you’d bother with the replacement?
Even 2 weeks away would be a stretch (unless you happened to lose it on the first night).
It’s an opt in paid for service that until very recently, was extremely unclear, with the chances are it not working (we don’t know what “exceptional circumstances” would have warranted a replacement).
I’m sure I’d be livid if I had to order a replacement card whilst abroad (never had the need so far). The cost wouldn’t improve my mood, but I’m not sure anything would.
If anything comes from this - it’s to shout from the treetops about carrying a spare card (and keep it as safe as possible!)
I think unfortunately you’re so focussed on your point and what you’re saying you’re entirely misinterpreting what other people are saying and thinking. This is going round and round in circles, and the point is everyone agrees with you, you just don’t seem to understand that. To be blunt, if i was mugged while i was abroad, i have been actually but that’s not the point, if i had been mugged abroad, i wouldn’t want to be in emotional distress on the phone to someone from Starling begging some COps and pleading my case for it to be decided yes or no as to some criteria i know nothing about, which was the system before now. I would want to know clearly that i would be able to get a new card, and that it would be sent quickly and easily, with no hassle. Free would be nice, but nothing’s free, so if i had to i’d pay, but i’d want it done quickly and easily.
I’m going to step out of this now as you’re completely misinterpreting what people are saying and trying to put over and not listening and i’m actually getting quite angry here, and its too late in the day for this…
It is not an inclusive bank in the sense that you mean. It talks about financial inclusion only in terms of mobile banking being accessible. It is less inclusive than banks that offer basic accounts (i.e. all the big banks) and local credit unions. However, if it accepts you as a customer it does not charge fees for failed payments or unauthorised overdrafts which is in line with basic accounts.