A small rise against a much bigger fall
In the most recent 90-day window tracked by Veste, 74 published Financial Ombudsman decisions concerned Monzo Bank Ltd, down from 261 in the prior 90-day window, a fall of 187 decisions, or 71.6%. Over the same comparison, the uphold rate moved from 12.5% to 12.8%, a rise of 0.3 percentage points. Both windows meet Veste's minimum sample threshold of 30 decisions, so the comparison is statistically usable, but a shift of 0.3 percentage points on a base of 74 decisions is small enough that it should be read as noise rather than a meaningful change in outcomes.
The proposed story behind this piece flagged a 0.4 percentage point rise; Veste's period comparison data records the change as 0.3 percentage points (from 12.5% to 12.8%). That figure, not the earlier estimate, is what the supplied evidence supports, and it is the one used throughout this analysis.
What is more striking than the rate movement is the volume collapse. A fall from 261 to 74 decisions in successive 90-day windows is a substantial drop in the flow of published outcomes concerning this firm, and it is worth treating the uphold-rate comparison with some caution given how much smaller the current window is relative to the one before it.
The numbers in full
Across the entire period Veste holds data for Monzo Bank Ltd, 2,799 decisions have been published, of which 508 were upheld, 479 partially upheld and 1,812 not upheld, giving an overall uphold rate of 26.7%. Under Veste's definition, the uphold rate is calculated as (upheld plus 0.5 multiplied by partially upheld) divided by total decisions. Monzo's first published decision in Veste's corpus dates to 12 September 2018 and the most recent to 8 June 2026.
That overall 26.7% figure sits below Veste's corpus-wide baseline uphold rate of 28.8%, calculated across 401,815 decisions with an outcome recorded. The gap between the two is modest, and it should not be read as evidence that Monzo performs materially differently from the wider population of firms in the corpus, particularly given how much the firm's own rate has moved around over time, as the yearly breakdown below shows.
The longer trend tells a different story to the quarterly one
The monthly series, spanning 25 months from June 2024 to June 2026, shows a clear downward drift in Monzo's uphold rate that predates the latest 90-day comparison. In June 2024 the monthly uphold rate stood at 24.5%, rising to a peak of 39.6% in November 2024. From early 2025 the rate fell steadily: 18.3% in April 2025, 16.5% in August 2025, and down to 10.2% in September 2025, the lowest point in the series. It has stayed in a similar low band since, recording 11.2% in October 2025, 11.0% in November 2025, 11.8% in December 2025, 11.9% in February 2026 and 9.7% in March 2026.
The final three months of the series, April, May and June 2026, show very low decision counts: 13, 10 and 4 decisions respectively. With totals that small, the associated uphold rates of 15.4%, 10% and 12.5% for those months are not reliable indicators of a trend and should be treated as provisional until more decisions are published and backdated into the corpus.
The yearly figures reinforce the pattern of decline. In 2022, Monzo's uphold rate across 275 decisions was 39.8%. It fell to 37.5% across 372 decisions in 2023, to 34.9% across 737 decisions in 2024, to 17.2% across 933 decisions in 2025, and stands at 12.6% across 305 decisions so far in 2026. Every one of these yearly samples meets Veste's minimum sample threshold, so the year-on-year comparison is robust in a way that the latest 90-day snapshot is not. Read against this backdrop, the quarter-on-quarter rise of 0.3 percentage points looks less like a change in direction and more like a brief pause within a much longer downward slope in the proportion of published decisions going against the firm.
What the case mix might be showing
Veste's dataset does not permit a full breakdown of Monzo's decisions by complaint category with matched sample sizes, but the related categories tracked across the whole corpus give some context for the kinds of disputes that reach the Ombudsman for banks of this type. Fraud reimbursement complaints under the APP scam rules show an uphold rate of 32.1% across 1,509 decisions corpus-wide. Account closure without notice complaints show a lower uphold rate of 12% across 456 decisions. Card and payment dispute complaints sit at 19.3% across 335 decisions. Irresponsible lending complaints show 27.6% across 147 decisions, service failures generally 32.9% across 140 decisions, credit file and adverse marker disputes 30.1% across 93 decisions, and account administration errors 24.3% across 35 decisions.
These are corpus-wide figures, not Monzo-specific ones, and should not be read as describing Monzo's own performance in any of these categories. They do, however, give a sense of how uphold rates vary substantially by complaint type, from around 12% for account closure disputes to around 33% for general service failures. If disputed transaction and scam-related cases make up a growing share of the decisions published about any current account provider, that alone could move a firm's blended uphold rate, though Veste's data does not allow that mechanism to be confirmed for Monzo specifically.
Individual decisions, illustrative only
Four recent decisions concerning Monzo Bank Ltd, published between 1 June and 8 June 2026, illustrate the range of issues reaching the Ombudsman, though none should be read as representative of a wider pattern.
In one case, a customer disputed an £894 payment made from his account in December 2025, claiming it was unauthorised. The Ombudsman found the payment had been made using the customer's registered device and correct security credentials, and concluded it was more likely than not that he had authorised it himself. Monzo's decision not to refund the transaction was upheld, though the firm was ordered to pay £20 for delays in responding.
In a second case, a customer had paid a builder around £25,000 in total, of which £13,550 was disputed, after the builder left a job unfinished. The Ombudsman found this did not meet the definition of an APP scam under the CRM Code, since some work had been completed and there was no evidence of fraudulent intent from the outset. However, the complaint was partially upheld because Monzo's communications during the investigation were found to be unclear, particularly given the customer's disclosed vulnerabilities, and the firm was ordered to pay £200 in compensation for that service failure.
A third case concerned a Cifas fraud marker registered against a customer after £300 in fraudulant funds entered her account and she transferred £210 onward. The Ombudsman found the marker was fair given inconsistencies in the customer's account of events.
A fourth case involved a business account holder who paid an electrician £150 for an inspection and certificate that was never provided. The Ombudsman found insufficient evidence to classify this as a scam, since the electrician had completed related installation work and had no other fraud reports against him, making Monzo's classification of the matter as a civil dispute reasonable.
These four decisions cover disputed transactions, scam classification, fraud markers and service quality, all common themes in current account complaints generally, but four decisions cannot establish a pattern for a firm with 2,799 decisions on record.
What the data does and does not show
The data shows that Monzo's published uphold rate rose marginally, by 0.3 percentage points, between two 90-day windows, while the number of decisions published fell sharply, by 187 decisions or 71.6%. It shows that this small rise sits within a longer run of falling annual uphold rates, from 39.8% in 2022 down to 12.6% so far in 2026. It shows that Monzo's overall uphold rate across its full published history, 26.7%, sits modestly below the corpus-wide baseline of 28.8%.
What the data does not show is why volumes have fallen so sharply in the most recent quarter, nor whether the uptick in uphold rate reflects any change in Monzo's practices, changes in the mix of complaint types reaching the Ombudsman, or simple statistical variation around a small number of cases. Published Ombudsman decisions are also not the same population as all complaints made to a firm; many complaints are resolved before reaching a published decision, so this dataset describes only the subset that proceeded to a formal, published outcome.
The bottom line
The headline of a rising uphold rate for Monzo Bank Ltd is real but small, 0.3 percentage points on a sample of 74 decisions against 261 previously, and it should not be mistaken for a reversal of the broader multi-year decline visible in the yearly figures. Anyone monitoring this firm's Ombudsman record would do better to watch the longer monthly and annual trend, which shows a much larger and more consistent movement, than to draw conclusions from a single quarter's small sample.