The direct debit form at Lendo

The short version

The problem

Customers who set up direct debit at signup kept their insurance far more often, and the form asked for the account number in two fields.

What I did

Researched how every Swedish bank app writes account numbers, with screenshots from colleagues where I had no account. Then changed the form to one field.

What it was worth

An estimated 10% more completed direct-debit signups.

The call

A small form fix now, not a payment integration that a coming system migration would replace anyway.

What changed

Insurance customers at Lendo could set up direct debit while signing up. The ones who did kept their insurance far more often, so every signup that stalled at the payment step had a real cost.

The form asked for two things. Clearing number in one field, account number in another. That looks harmless until you watch where the number actually comes from.

The number comes from the customer's mobile banking app. So I researched how every Swedish bank writes account numbers. Some show two parts. Most show one combined string, and most offer a copy button for the full number.

I did not have accounts at every bank, so I asked colleagues to check theirs and send screenshots. No budget, no tooling, just asking. The picture was consistent. A customer copies one string from their bank app, and our form demanded they split it into two boxes by hand.

The fix followed the evidence. One field, accepting the number the way the bank app hands it over.

The thorough answer existed. A bank connection through Tink or a similar provider, where the customer picks their account and never types anything.

I deliberately did not build it. A system migration was already coming, and it would include exactly that. Building the integration early would have made it throwaway work. The one-field form helped customers immediately and cost almost nothing, which is the right size of fix when a bigger platform change is on the way.

Completed direct-debit signups rose by an estimated 10%. That figure is an informed estimate rather than an audited measurement, and it is kept as one on purpose.

The method is the part I would repeat anywhere. Find where the input actually comes from, gather evidence cheaply, change the form to match reality, and save the big build for when it will not be thrown away.