@TechNL#125661 So one IBAN stays available (I’m guessing the last one that remains after having closed the others?) to receive money on?

You can’t use the account to do iDeal payments? And if you want to transfer money out you’ll have to transfer the entire balance?

Did you ever got a follow up? I’m looking to do something similar but there’s no information available on what the Travel card membership entails (aside from the card itself).

I agree with @Richard-Yellow-Shark#112810 here. It's very commendable that @Noah-Pink-Penguin made this but this should've been picked up by bunq.

I'm feeling less and less sympathetic towards bunq if I'm honest. We pay a premium fee to be able to use this bank, but at the same time there's not much we get in return that another bank isn't offering for a lower fee or sometimes even for free.

What personally irks me the wrong way is that bunq is essentially letting others do the dirty work for them for free, be it certain implementations and applications such as @Noah-Pink-Penguin's work or their free PR army that's dwelling around here that will reply on everything with a variant of 'bunq is great' or 'give bunq the benefit of the doubt' complete 👏 with 👏 the 👏 emoji 👏 spam that actual paid support is using just to make sure you buy into the feeling that everything is nice and sparkly ✨🌈

bunq is literally the most expensive bank there is but yet they still feel the need to let the community do the heavy lifting for them while disguising it as it being something great, meanwhile the rol out of new functions is very slow, asking about them will always yield some vague reply that suggest that they're looking into it, making it all feel rather lacklustre. Update 11 was rather pathetic imho, with Ali acting like he's the new Steve Jobs announcing some groundbreaking stuff, while in reality most of it wasn't even aimed at the regular consumer and the stuff that was aimed at the business costumers was not that earth shattering, not in the least because they had the audacity to tack on a fee for something that should be free to begin with, let alone when you take into account what is being paid to use their services.

Anyways, rant over, but I don't understand why everyone here on Together is acting like we should thank bunq on our knees that we are allowed to pay premium prices to use their service.

Honestly this whole push for iDIN integration seems nonsense to me.

First of all we have to keep in mind that bunq is an international bank and provides their services to 28 (and more?) countries.

To expect them to implement about 30 local flavours of identification and authentication protocols is simply absurd, more so if they all turn out to be commercial like the Dutch iDIN. If all of them would charge the same fee iDIN charges just for the rights of implementation then bunq would need to pay almost €2 million. And that's not considering the additional fees.

Secondly, I don't think it is a task for financial institutions to identify and authenticate people regardless of the fact that the Dutch government pushed them to the front lines for this task (due to their own incompetence). Besides I don't want to be dependent on my bank for authentication, if only because it gives them too much power in case I've got a dispute with them. Nor should we move to a US model where private corporation get to hold power like this. iDIN is simply a pet project of the Payment Association to accumulate some extra income.

Thirdly, the government is working hard (or so we hope) at a successor of DigID to make stuff like this possible so that one isn't dependent on organisations like iDIN and Idensys which were aptly called 'authentication pimps' by one researcher. Personally I'm a fan of IRMA https://privacybydesign.foundation/irma-explanation/ but that's beyond the scope of this topic.

And lastly, for all the people here that complain, aim those complaints to the organisations that 'force' you to use it. Most of the examples that are mentioned (e.g. the Dutch lottery, BKR, insurance companies) are fallacies. They all offer an alternative as they should since they are mandated by law to do so. If the alternative isn't to your liking, then don't blame bunq, blame them.
Why should you be forced to handle stuff by old fashioned mail if they clearly don't care about receiving hard copies evidenced by the fact that they'll gladly accept iDIN, meaning that handling it over email should suffice as well. Personally I prefer sending in a copy of my ID anyways, you should (as is your right) censor all but the relevant parts of your ID and put a big red text over it indicating for whom it is meant and for which use with the instruction to destroy the copy after it has outlived it's use. The benefit of this is that your financial institution doesn't know what you're up to.

Not to mention the fact that a little perspective can't hurt either, it's not like you're asked to identify with iDIN on a daily or even weekly basis. Signing up for an insurance, getting your credit report from the BKR or signing up for/receiving from a lottery are typically one and done kind of actions, let's not act like we're severely gimped by the lack of iDIN support.

I wouldn't want bunq to squander €60k up to €2 mil depending on how many countries have a 'unique' authentication service for something like this, that money could be put to use on something really useful. I go to bunq for my financial services, the government (i.e. my ID) for identification services, the grocery store for my groceries and the bookstore for my books.

Last update(?): As a matter of full disclosure I should tell that I was just contacted again and after they'v reached out to developers it turned out that the reason why there were issues in the ordering process was because there used to be a third card way back when.

Still, doesn't change the fact that this could've been indicated without resorting to and insisting on flawed logic and without wasting hours of both party's time.

Update: after having spend literally two hours, hearing the words 'I have just asked this to my supervisor, virtual cards count for the 3 active cards[…]', and a transfer to a supervisor it has been resolved.

The last time the whole ordeal took just shy of two hours as well and I'm sorry to say this but if three people, one of which is a supervisor, can't fathom the simple notion '3 physical cards and 5 digital cards are included with a Premium account', causing customers to waste 4 hours instead of the 2 minutes it actually takes to resolve the issue, then there's something seriously lacking with the way bunq is training these people.

As the title says, can the CSs be trained properly on basic fundamentals when it comes to their products?

With the new travel card being offered, this is the second time I'm stuck in private chat having a discussion where none should've been had.

Situation: I have 2 physical cards on my Premium subscription. I get invited to preorder the Travel card, I check the FAQ and it clearly says 'If you have less than 3 cards (or 4 for Joint), then you can order the bun Travel Card for no extra costs.' This sentence (and the whole section where this is a part of) clearly references the amount of physical cards that come with the subscription.

However when trying to order the Travel Card it indicates that I will be charged a €9 fee should I continue with the order. Sure, a bug or something similar can happen. Shouldn't take more than a minute with support, right? Wrong! Again (this happened with the second card I ordered a while back) I'm stuck in some discussion loop with me having to refute weird reasoning by supplying screenshots and official bunq documents (https://www.bunq.com/assets/media/legal/en/20190522_consumers_business_pricing_EN.pdf) while the person on the other end keeps insisting that the digital cards (which not nearly at the 5 max) also count towards the 3 card limit.

This simply isn't the case and honestly I'm kinda sick and tired having to teach bunq's customer representatives something that I shouldn't even have to teach. Worst of all, when confronted with mountains of documentation that either explicitly or implicitly refute their logic, I get a shrug at best and them simply repeating stuff like 'Yes, I know that <name>,but in this case, the cards that count are all your active cards 😊' as if it's some kind of magical mantra.

At times it get's so ridiculous that if you entertain their reasoning and then point out that even according to their reasoning it doesn't add up, they simply move the goalpost. E.g. 'In this case it is not meant to be about physical cards, it means if you have 3 active cards ' ok, sure but the FAQ also indicates 'If you already have 3 cards (or 4 for Joint), you will then need to pay a one-time fee of €9 for production costs. Then when you activate the card, you will be charged an extra €3 per month on top of the monthly fee. If you block or freeze one of the cards, so that you have only 3 active cards in total (or 4 for Joint), then you will not be charged the €3 monthly cost.' so if I entertain your logic that it's solely based on any active cards, physical or not, then why am I still charged the production fee if I freeze all my cards bringing the total active cards down to 0, since the FAQ equates freezing cards to not having them active?

The last time another customer rep had to intervene after almost an hour of back and fort and I got a chocolate bar (a tasty one at that) as a form of apology, but I'd rather this be as painless as possible instead of receiving another chocolate bar. After all, what's the use of an apology if you're going to do the same thing again?

Currently I'm still in the chat, having to deal with the goalpost moving every time I manage to refute whatever new explanation with no end in sight, wondering how long it's going to take this time before the person on the other end realises the reasoning is stretched too thin and something is up.

So bunq, for the love of god, train your customer representatives on your own policy AND train them to stop and think if confronted with your own communication, be it marketing communication or actual legal documentation. Or, if for some weird reason it truly is dependent on the total amount of cards active, physical or digital, then adjust documentation and communication accordingly.

There's nothing more frustrating as a costumer than to have to teach your customer reps on what they should be teaching us.

@Ricardo-Purple-Leopard#85547 That’s on purpose, the idea is that you wait until you get the card and activate it with the instructions that come with it.

@Oscar-Betalingsspecialist#85047 Je laatste punt is niet helemaal correct. Ik heb in de VS gewoond en daar zou het wel zo werken, hier in Nederland hebben we een systeem dat tegenovergesteld werkt.

Allereerst hebben we hier geen echte score. BKR (en andere kredietcore organisaties) geven geen echte score. Niet in de vorm van een nummer en in het geval van het BKR ook geen waardeoordeel.

Daarnaast wordt er veel minder informatie gedeeld met betrekking tot je kredietgeschiedenis. In de VS wordt bijna alle mogelijke informatie gedeeld, bedrag, welke betaling voor welk bedrag op welke datum en indien van toepassing hoeveel dagen te laat etc etc. En zo zijn er nog wel meer verschillen.

Maar de belangrijkste verschillen is dat in de filosofie die erachter zit. In de VS moet je jezelf ‘bewijzen’ door krediet te spenderen en op tijd terug te betalen. Iemand die net nieuw geëmigreerd is zal bijvoorbeeld een hele lage score hebben en daardoor geen krediet kunnen krijgen en daardoor aangewezen zijn tot ‘secured credit cards’ om z’n score op te bouwen.

Ik vermoed dat jouw verzoek voortvloeit uit een ervaring hiermee? In het kort gaat men daar uit van een principe van wantrouwen en omdat er geen risico’s zijn voor financiële instellingen dat ze hun geld kwijt zijn als ze je krediet hebben gegeven die je rederijkerijen niet had kunnen dragen (er is geen zorgplicht) kun je in theorie een onbeperkt aantal aan kredieten afsluiten zolang je op tijd betaald. Dit fenomeen zorgt er voor dat er veel Amerikanen zijn die meerdere credit cards hebben omdat ze gaten opvullen met gaten door de ene kaart te gebruiken om de andere mee af te betalen en zo in een cirkel om en om de gaten opvullen, maar dat terzijde.

Dit zorgt er ook voor dat je bijna niet kunt voldoen met alleen debit cards zoals in Nederland gewoon is als je van plan bent om ‘volwassen’ stappen te zetten aldaar (denk aan kopen van huis, auto etc).

In Nederland werkt het precies andersom. Hier wordt gehandeld naar een principe van ‘voordeel van de twijfel’. Als je nog geen kredietgeschiedenis hebt, dan krijg je in principe een krediet (aangenomen dat je inkomen voldoet). Dus iemand die net 18 is kan op z’n verjaardag een bank binnenlopen met z’n loonstrookjes en heeft binnen een week een credit card met een limiet van zo’n €2000,-, als het al niet aangeboden is met je studentenpakket.

Hier wordt voornamelijk gekeken naar zogenaamde negatieve registraties. Achterstand in betalingen. Dus iemand die geen registraties heeft wordt beschouwd als net zo goed als iemand die door middel van jouw suggestie een geschiedenis heeft opgebouwd met een zogenaamde ‘secured credit card’.

Sterker nog, aangezien financiële instellingen hier wel een zorgplicht hebben met als gevolg dat ze kunnen fluiten naar hun centen als blijkt dat je op basis van je draagkracht helemaal geen krediet had moeten krijgen, heeft de persoon zonder registraties een betere kans op het krijgen van krediet dan de persoon met positieve registraties, omdat hier ook de afweging gemaakt wordt of je er nog wel een krediet bij kunt hebben ongeacht je betaalgeschiedenis.

Iemand met een gemiddeld inkomen zal erachter komen dat na zo’n 3 lopende kredieten met positieve betaalgeschiedenis het vrij moeilijk wordt er nog een bij te krijgen.

In het kort: in de VS kun je voornamelijk alleen pluspunten verdienen, hier voornamelijk alleen minpunten. Er valt hier dus niets te verdienen, daarom bestaan er in Nederland geen secured credit cards en jouw suggestie zal je alleen maar tegenwerken in het verkrijgen van krediet ongeacht je betaalgeschiedenis.