Not upheld: scam loss - failure to prevent/intervene complaint against Monzo Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5991414 of 2026-04-06T00:00:00+00:00. scam loss - failure to prevent/intervene complaint against Monzo Bank Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5991414 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-06T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Monzo Bank Limited |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | scam loss - failure to prevent/intervene |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. Complaint not upheld. No reimbursement ordered. |
Summary
Miss S lost over £12,000 to an investment scam after being contacted by scammers offering a fake job opportunity. She made multiple card payments from her Monzo account to international remittance services, which transferred the funds to the scammers. When questioned by remittance services and other firms, Miss S provided false information on the scammers' instructions. The ombudsman found that while Monzo should have intervened by 9 July 2025 when spending patterns became suspicious, the evidence showed Miss S was determined to proceed with payments regardless, repeatedly misled other firms, and would likely have used alternative methods if blocked. Therefore, Monzo was not held liable for the loss, as reasonable intervention would most likely not have prevented it.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Although Miss S authorized the payments and was manipulated rather than defrauded in the technical sense, the Payment Services Regulations place initial liability on the customer. While Monzo should have intervened by the 9 July 2025 payment of nearly £4,000 through automated warnings, the evidence shows Miss S repeatedly misled other firms when questioned, actively sought advice from scammers on how to deceive firms, and was determined to get payments through regardless of obstacles. Given this pattern, proportionate intervention by Monzo would most likely not have stopped the loss, as Miss S would have provided false answers to automated questions (as she did with other firms) and would have used alternative payment methods if blocked. Even person-to-person intervention would likely have been unsuccessful given her demonstrated willingness to mislead and her continued contact with scammers. Miss S's vulnerabilities, while sympathized with, were not known to Monzo at the time and would not have changed the outcome.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Monzo Bank Limited, all decisions | 170 | 11% |
| Current account, all decisions | 45,590 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website