Not upheld: irresponsible lending complaint against Monzo Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6239747 of 2026-05-15T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending complaint against Monzo Bank Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6239747 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-15T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Monzo Bank Limited |
| Product | credit card and overdraft |
| Claim type | irresponsible lending |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. Ombudsman strongly encouraged Monzo to work with Miss C to provide support and forbearance to ease her current financial strain, and recommended Miss C contact Monzo to discuss available help. |
Summary
Miss C complained that Monzo acted irresponsibly in granting her a flex credit card (with limits increasing from £3,000 to £5,000) and an overdraft (increasing from £1,000 to £2,000). The ombudsman found that Monzo's checks were reasonable and proportionate, including income verification, credit file checks, and affordability assessments. Bank statements showed Miss C was meeting her commitments and using the overdraft in a controlled manner for limited periods. Although Miss C claimed financial difficulty, her actual usage patterns did not support intervention. The complaint was not upheld, though the ombudsman encouraged Monzo to provide support and forbearance given her current circumstances.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Monzo's checks were reasonable and proportionate for the credit limits granted. Bank statements showed Miss C was meeting commitments without issue and using the overdraft in a controlled manner with awareness of her balance. The historical default was not a concern given its age. Monzo's monitoring and written notifications about repeat overdraft use were sufficient, and there was no evidence suggesting Miss C was unable to repay or that the facilities were worsening her financial situation.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Monzo Bank Limited, all decisions | 147 | 10% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website