Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against MONZO BANK LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M, who has a long-standing gambling addiction and had activated Monzo's gambling block, complained that approximately £11,500 in payments to overseas unlicenced online casinos were allowed to leave his account in March and April 2024 despite the block being active. In October 2023, after Mr M first raised concerns about payments still going through, Monzo explained the limitations of its gambling block and offered to apply merchant-level blocks if Mr M supplied the merchant names, which Mr M declined. The ombudsman found that Monzo had taken reasonable steps and that Mr M's rejection of the offered assistance meant it would be unfair to hold Monzo liable, resulting in the complaint not being upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Monzo had taken reasonable steps by explaining the limitations of its gambling block and offering to apply merchant-level blocks if Mr M provided the merchant names. Since Mr M declined this offer and stated he had already blocked the merchants himself, Monzo could not be held liable for subsequent losses. The ombudsman distinguished this case from another similar Monzo decision by noting that Monzo had made a specific offer of assistance that Mr M rejected, and emphasized that each case must be assessed on its individual merits.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website