Haphazard but fun and inclusive - Senior Manager, Marketing LOQBOX Employee Review

Primarily remote work. However, flexibility varies significantly by department. In some teams, office-day requirements are rigid to the point where even reasonable personal needs couldn’t be accommodated or swapped.

I really wouldn’t trust the last two positive reviews. They have been done my management in an attempt to save face. Where to start on the cons • The tech situation is dire. Years of tech debt, constant patchwork fixes, and outright resistance to upgrading tools. Calling itself a fintech felt almost absurd from the inside — nothing about the infrastructure resembled a modern financial technology company. • The product proposition was murky at best, and internally, no one could articulate a clear value story. • Senior marketing leadership, namely the CMO but the others are also incredibly incompetent, lacked clear strategic direction. Decisions often seemed top-down, with little space for healthy challenge or alternative viewpoints. Despite this she had absolutely no idea how the day to day worked and added no clear value to the business marketing growth. • The cancellation journey for users was so convoluted that it felt deliberately discouraging. Considering the financially vulnerable audience, this left a genuinely bad taste in my mouth. • The recent wave of redundancies is being handled, in my view, extremely poorly. Communication felt inconsistent, emotionally charged from managers not being made redundant, and at times unprofessional bordering on unlawful. The process left many employees feeling unsupported and confused. • Junior team members — even those far removed from strategy — were expected to contribute heavily to business-level OKRs, creating a sense that roles and expectations weren’t clearly defined.

- Some great team members that truly learned from each other - Strong cross-department collaboration, better than I’ve experienced at other start-ups

- Weak and inconsistent strategy - There was a constant push to try new ideas without committing to them long enough to execute properly. There seemed to be a belief that the next idea would fix everything, with limited consideration for delivery, impact, or the disruption caused by frequent change - For a company focused on financial well-being, memberships were unnecessarily complex and difficult to exit. This felt particularly concerning given the focus on the financially under-served member base - many would be considered vulnerable under consumer duty. This was made worse with a broader lack of understanding across the business of how credit actually works - As echoed in previous reviews, redundancies were handled poorly. There was significant change, no clear strategy, and little reassurance for remaining employees. Senior leadership appeared reluctant to engage directly with the process, with much of the responsibility and emotional labour falling to middle managers