Not upheld: chargeback requests for gambling transactions and failure to support vulnerable consumer complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs W complained that Monzo failed to support her as a vulnerable consumer and refused to raise chargeback requests for over £17,164 in gambling transactions across 123 transactions between February and July 2025. Mrs W had registered with GamStop in January 2025 but was still able to gamble through websites that were not registered with the UK Gambling Commission and did not use the correct gambling MCC 7995. Monzo was unaware of Mrs W's gambling problem until she contacted it in October 2025, at which point it offered support via its Wellbeing Team. The ombudsman found that Mastercard's rules explicitly prohibit chargebacks for gambling transactions and that reason code 4853 (misrepresentation) does not apply. The ombudsman also found that Monzo could not have identified Mrs W as vulnerable earlier since the gambling websites did not use the correct MCC for algorithmic detection and there were no other indicators of financial vulnerability on her account statements. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mastercard's rules explicitly prohibit chargebacks for gambling-related transactions, making Monzo's refusal to submit chargeback requests correct. Reason code 4853 (misrepresentation) does not apply to gambling transactions where the cardholder was fully authorizing the transactions. Regarding vulnerable consumer support, the ombudsman noted that banks rely on algorithms using merchant category codes (MCCs) to identify risk, and since the gambling websites did not use the correct MCC 7995, there was no automated alert. Manual reviews only occur when specific risk is identified or requested. Mrs W's account statements showed no indicators of financial vulnerability such as unarranged overdrafts or failed direct debits. Once Monzo became aware of Mrs W's difficulties in October 2025, it offered genuine and tailored support.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website