Began with a phonecall from recruiter asking various background questions to gauge motivation and giving the opportunity to understand the process. The second phase was a video call with the engineering lead to go through more of the technical background and experience. He was inquisitive, respectful, and we had good rapport. Third phase was a coding challenge to do in your own time, built against their APIs. They were clear in the instructions that there is no time limit but they like the work to be completed in a week _if_possible_. Fourth phase was technical interview with the hiring manager and a technical interviewer. The questions were surprisingly confrontational at times with the engineer accusing me of behaviour that should be considered deeply unprofessional, disregarding my calm explanation, and proceeding to laugh with the manager that I had taken too long to complete the task: 2-3 days effort across 2 weeks in a very busy period where I had rightly prioritized my existing commitments. I explained my position and took this on the chin, again this was dismissed. As I explained to them, I had included very high test coverage as the hiring manager had flagged this as an area where they were currently lacking. This was not acknowledged by either party. I had also provided significant feedback on their API design and my own design assumptions for the task. There was no interest in these aspects either. When I outlined the inner workings of the tools they use on a daily basis, the engineer looked baffled rather than intrigued. Looking back on it I now get the impression the technical interviewer hadn't put much effort into reviewing the submitted work or my CV, and that they lacked an appreciation for the fundamental concepts underlying the frameworks they use on a daily basis. I was calm and polite throughout, but in retrospect their behaviour was rather disrespectful. Following this phase I received a call from the recruiter that I would not be progressing further due to insufficient technical experience. I politely expressed my surprise and asked for any further clarification available to support my career / any future applications to Starling. No feedback was available, bar that I had mentioned security a few times. In the context of working for a bank I would have thought that was an asset, but instead this seemed to be the only thing the recruiter could pinpoint to tell me. Some days later I followed-up with a request for a post-interview debrief with the hiring manager to gain the feedback, and it was indicated by him that this would be possible. The recruiter then closed down all contact and refused to respond. As a software engineer who cares deeply about their work it would have been invaluable for me to hear areas for improvement. This is something all engineers should seek as a guide for ongoing professional development. As an existing Starling customer and prospective candidate who took the time to apply, the refusal to provide feedback left me with a very negative opinion of the company. Prospective employees should be treated as a customer of the recruitment process, and may also be customers of the wider business. The behaviour I witnessed is baffling. As this was demonstrated at two different levels in the recruitment process I am concerned this may be indicative of wider company culture. I would not condone this treatment of my own customers. While I fully respect their decision I remain deeply disappointed by the experience.

Got through to the technical take-home test and spent the best part of a week working on it. Once it had been submitted I was told that the test was great but due to not having security experience they wouldn't take it further. There was no mention prior of my security background.