Thread closures


Has there been some sort of internal decree that mods should look to actively shut down any threads with a negative subject matter? There was a thread closed last night (with a blatantly incorrect statement that it was due to user error rather than a bug), the Pay@Pump thread has been closed and now another one:

Threads are usually left open unless they are a duplicate that has been merged or they have been inactive for 4 months. I’m really concerned by this apparent shift in policy - I hope I’m wrong and @StarlingSupport can correct me but if the new policy is to shut down threads because Starling doesn’t like what’s being said, that would be a game changer for me.


I moved to Starling because I liked the tech, but more importantly because, having spent a few weeks lurking on here, I liked the way the bank interacted with its customers.

That confidence that @StarlingSupport has its customers back is taking a real kicking today.



Just to clarify. Gurus do not and can not close threads. This is only done by Starling Staff.


You guys 100% need the ability to merge threads though.


I am clearly the only one who can. I suggest, it is done. That is the power I hold around here…


I was aware of that @MIROW, all of the ones I’ve seen have been closed by staff :+1:t2:


Well it’s all easily explained… :joy:

Pay at pump, they’ve made clear why they have to do what they are doing and why really they have no choice. They can’t have people going into unauthorised overdrafts when they can prevent it.

The customer service thread, there was a response by staff who are probably dealing with the issue now so no need for the thread to still be open. We’ve had this issue before where there is endless debate about an issue only starling and the customer can resolve between them.

I haven’t seen the other thread you’re talking about. There have been cases though where threads have been going on for far too long and should have been closed sooner.


Hi Ryan,

Unless you know something I don’t, I am incredibly unclear on this statement from Meghan.

Further, as Sarah stated, we have applied an additional layer of pre-authorisation amounts too in order to reduce the number of card disputes and the situation where customers have gone into unauthorised overdrafts.

Can you explain what Starlings additional layers of pre authorisation are?


They have the facility to close threads automatically if there is no reply.

If customers feel the need to keep posting, then not really sure how you can decide that it should be closed. After all your opinion is just that, opinion, someone else’s opinion is they wanted to post.


@Ryan I’m not sure why you keep blindly supporting Starling on this one. Lots of people have explained that they have more than enough funds available but have been declined. Whatever Starling have done is not an adequate solution and the sooner they admit that, the sooner a resolution can be found.


Everyone loves a self-appointed moderator.


@NickH No I don’t because they seem to have implemented some sort of bespoke solution to the problem.

@daedal There have been threads where people get involved with disputes between starling and a customer. It’s pointless and doesn’t help anything.

@danmullen I’m defending them because I understand their reasoning. Just as I do with other banks that are doing the same thing.

It would help if starling could explain how exactly their solution works.


That’s what we asked for, but you seem to suggest that we shouldn’t.


I wouldn’t expect a bank to tell us.


Starling isn’t a traditional bank, so maybe you should consider that more and not go with the whole well others don’t do it, so Starling shouldn’t.

Starling should be trying to be different, better, more advanced.


If you look at monzos so called transparency I’ve learnt to expect less not more.


I think part of the issue here from Starling is the lack of clarity. It’s no good closing threads that people are actively participating in and having a discussion. That said their are limits, for example, I saw a thread that had descended into a “he said, she said argument” and I saw another thread (relating to a frozen account) that the constant back an forth wasn’t achieving anything because it was clearly a matter between the customer and Starling.


I have seen a number of threads in the last few days getting locked but even for the ones that aren’t it’s clear that we’re getting vague, contradictory, or just non sensicle information from Starling staff.

There was the thread about the duplicate payments, I’m still none the wiser as to whether or not it’s a bug in the app, a bug in the back end or if Starling are saying the problem is iOS. I thought it was clear that Logan had identified a bug but Callum seemed to very careful to suggest it was anything other than a bug, even though it seems clear it’s more than likely a bug.

Then there is the original pay at pump thread which it’s clear needs to remain open because Starling haven’t addressed where the issue lies. I think it’s reasonably clear to most of us that the issue is Starling is not allowing these non compliant transaction but doesn’t seem to want to admit it but without clarification… who knows ?

sorry for the repeated use of the B word (bug)


Monzo has nothing to do with your defending Starling or about thread closures.


I agree @Ryan, I totally understand their reasoning, I just think they’ve implemented it badly/incorrectly. People have had transactions declined when they had funds available, so something is going wrong somewhere. Starling should want as much feedback as possible to help them identify where the process has fallen down.

All any of us want is clarification of what is actually going on here.


You were talking about new challenger banks being more open and I’m giving examples of that not being the case.

In the end they’re still a bank, there is only so much they can tell us.