Not upheld: scam and fraud - Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam claim complaint against Monzo Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6226143 of 2026-05-13T00:00:00+00:00. scam and fraud - Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam claim complaint against Monzo Bank Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6226143 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-13T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Monzo Bank Limited |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | scam and fraud - Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam claim |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No additional remedy ordered. The £75 compensation already paid by Monzo for poor service was deemed appropriate and in line with what the ombudsman would have recommended. |
Summary
Ms P purchased a car from a private seller (A) for £2,170 via two payments from her Monzo account. After taking possession, the car developed an oil leak and the seller failed to provide promised documentation. Ms P claimed she had been scammed and requested a refund from Monzo, which declined on the basis that this was a civil dispute. The ombudsman upheld Monzo's decision, finding that while Ms P received defective goods and incomplete documentation, the evidence did not establish that the seller acted with fraudulent intent at the time of payment. The ombudsman applied the Faster Payments Scheme Reimbursement Rules definition of an APP scam and concluded that defective goods and supplier dissatisfaction are specifically excluded from coverage. Monzo's £75 compensation for poor service was deemed appropriate.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Faster Payments Scheme Reimbursement Rules definition of an APP scam, which requires either that the recipient is not who the consumer intended to pay, or the payment is not for the purpose intended. The ombudsman found that Ms P paid the intended recipient (A) and both parties' purposes matched (Ms P to buy a car, A to sell it). While the car had defects and documentation was missing, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence to establish that the seller acted with fraudulent intent at the time of payment. The ombudsman applied the civil standard of balance of probabilities but noted the high threshold for establishing fraud. The ombudsman concluded that disorganisation, mismanagement, or incompetence were equally plausible explanations for the seller's conduct as fraud. The ombudsman noted that defective goods or dissatisfaction with a supplier are specifically excluded from the APP scam definition under the Reimbursement Rules.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Monzo Bank Limited, all decisions | 149 | 10% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website