Not upheld: fraud marker loading and account closure complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B complained that Monzo Bank Limited unfairly loaded a negative fraud marker against him on the National Fraud Database after he received £207.90 in fraudulent payments. Mr B claimed the payments were for selling a tablet computer, but could only provide a photograph of a tablet and no other supporting evidence such as purchase receipts, communications with the buyer, or delivery proof. The ombudsman found that while a financial crime had been committed, the complete absence of corroborating evidence led to the conclusion that Mr B was complicit in receiving the fraudulent funds. The complaint was not upheld, and the ombudsman found Monzo acted fairly in loading the marker.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While the ombudsman was satisfied that a financial crime had been committed based on the fraud notification, they needed to determine whether Mr B was complicit in receiving the fraudulent funds. The ombudsman found the lack of corroborating evidence very surprising - Mr B could not provide purchase evidence, delivery proof, or communications with the buyer. Although the ombudsman acknowledged that some evidence might reasonably be absent in an informal cash transaction, the complete absence of any supporting documentation (purchase receipt, bank statement, advertisement, or buyer communications) led to the conclusion that Mr B was complicit in receiving the fraudulent funds. Therefore, Monzo acted fairly in loading the marker.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website