Veste

Not upheld: unauthorized payments / scam claim / irresponsible processing of gambling payments complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6241849 of 2026-06-15T00:00:00+00:00. unauthorized payments / scam claim / irresponsible processing of gambling payments complaint against Monzo Bank Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6241849
Decision date2026-06-15T00:00:00+00:00
FirmMonzo Bank Limited
ProductCurrent account
Claim typeunauthorized payments / scam claim / irresponsible processing of gambling payments
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone

Summary

Miss C complained that Monzo should reimburse her for over 100 payments totalling £4,800 made to an unlicensed gambling website between January and April 2025, claiming it was a scam. She argued Monzo should have warned her about the offshore operator and the use of a third-party payment processor, and should have considered her vulnerabilities. Monzo refused reimbursement on the basis that Miss C received the service she paid for. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence the gambling site was operating a scam, that Miss C authorized the payments with sufficient consent, and that she received the service paid for, therefore not upholding the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Miss C authorized the payments with sufficient consent under the Payment Services Regulations, as she was aware she was making payments even if unaware of the payment processor details. The ombudsman determined there was insufficient evidence that the gambling site was operating a scam, as it was regulated abroad, some reviews confirmed successful withdrawals, and there was no evidence the payment processor was illegitimate. Without establishing a scam, there was no basis for Monzo to intervene or warn Miss C, and Miss C received the service she paid for despite unsuccessful bets.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Monzo Bank Limited, all decisions14910%
Current account, all decisions45,59019%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website