Upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr U complained about Monzo defaulting his Flex and Loan accounts after he fell into financial difficulty. Between 23-27 June 2025, Mr U negotiated and agreed to minimum monthly payments (£17 for Flex, £61.10 for Loan) via Monzo's chat function to avoid defaults. On 26 June 2025, Mr U confirmed he was happy with the arrangements, but Monzo then sent formal terms on 28 June 2025 requiring separate confirmation, which Mr U did not provide. Monzo subsequently defaulted both accounts, claiming no formal arrangement had been agreed. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding Monzo's communications were unclear and misleading about whether arrangements had been agreed, and that Mr U reasonably believed they were finalized after his confirmation on 26 June 2025.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Monzo's communications were unclear and misleading. While Monzo stated it would send details after Mr U confirmed acceptance, it did not clearly explain that only payment amounts and dates had been agreed, and that Mr U needed to separately agree to all formal terms before arrangements could be put in place. The message 'Just to confirm all the details before we put everything in place' followed by 'Please let me know if you are happy for us to put the arrangements in place and I will send you the rest of the details' reasonably led Mr U to believe the arrangements were agreed once he confirmed. Monzo should have explicitly stated that further confirmation of all terms was required. Had communications been clear, Mr U would have re-confirmed his agreement as he had done multiple times previously.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website