Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss T complained that Monzo Bank Limited unfairly handled her chargeback dispute regarding dental treatment she received abroad in February 2025, which she claimed was defective and caused ongoing health problems. Monzo raised chargebacks for 11 of 13 transactions, but discontinued them when the clinic provided a credible defence and Miss T did not submit material new information, despite Miss T claiming she was given insufficient time (about six days) to obtain further expert evidence. The ombudsman found that while the case involved complex medical treatment with many variables, Miss T had several months before the chargeback was raised to obtain expert evidence and was aware this would be necessary. The ombudsman concluded that the expert evidence Miss T ultimately provided did not clearly demonstrate the treatment was defective or not as described, and that even with more time, she would likely not have obtained evidence that would have changed the chargeback outcome. The complaint was not upheld, though the ombudsman noted Miss T could pursue the matter through court if she wished.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the subject matter of the dispute was extremely complex, involving medical treatment with many variables where outcomes depend on medical history and patient physiology. Miss T had signed a consent form acknowledging risks including infection. The clinic provided a reasonably detailed and credible defence. The evidence Miss T provided, while substantial, did not clearly demonstrate the treatment was defective or not as described. The ombudsman concluded that even if Monzo had given more time or pursued arbitration, the chargeback would likely not have succeeded due to the complexity and limitations of the expert evidence. The ombudsman noted that Miss T had several months before the chargeback was raised to obtain expert evidence and was aware this would be necessary. The ombudsman found that later evidence submitted by Miss T (quotes for further work) did not constitute persuasive evidence of poor initial performance, as treatment requiring follow-up is not itself evidence of defective service.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website