Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against MONZO BANK LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr F, who has struggled with gambling addiction for over 20 years, complained that Monzo Bank failed to protect him from gambling-related harm. After losing both parents and receiving an inheritance in October 2024, Mr F resumed gambling on an overseas website not covered by GamStop and lost approximately £90,000 between October 2024 and June 2025. He claimed to have contacted Monzo multiple times about his concerns, but the ombudsman found evidence only of March and June 2025 contacts. When Mr F disclosed his gambling problems in March 2025, Monzo provided account limits and merchant blocks. The ombudsman found that Monzo's response was appropriate and that gambling blocks have inherent limitations against overseas merchants using multiple payment routes, so Monzo could not have done more. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged Mr F's long-standing gambling addiction and the significant impact of recent losses following his parents' deaths. However, the ombudsman found that Monzo provided appropriate support when Mr F disclosed his gambling problems in March 2025, including applying account limits and blocking specific merchants. While gambling blocks have inherent limitations against overseas merchants that route payments through multiple channels, the ombudsman could not establish that Monzo should or could have done more given the current limitations of such tools. The ombudsman also found insufficient evidence that Mr F contacted Monzo in October 2024 as claimed.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website