Not upheld: unauthorised transactions / disputed payments complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss C disputed four payments totalling £212.62 made from her Monzo account in October 2025, claiming they were made without her authorisation by her abusive ex-partner who was staying with her. Monzo concluded Miss C was liable and closed her account, offering £50 compensation for service issues. The ombudsman found it more likely that Miss C authorised the payments or allowed someone else to use her card/account, as the payments required knowledge of multiple security details and physical access to her card and phone on multiple occasions, which Miss C confirmed she did not notice. The ombudsman upheld Monzo's decision to hold Miss C liable and found the account closure was handled fairly in accordance with the account terms.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017 starting position that firms are liable for unauthorised payments but customers are liable for authorised ones. The ombudsman found it more likely that Miss C authorised the payments or allowed someone else to use her card/account because: (1) the payments required knowledge of multiple security details (card number, expiry, CCV, phone passcodes, app passcodes, PIN); (2) an unauthorised person would have needed to access and return Miss C's phone and card multiple times over weeks without detection; (3) Miss C confirmed she did not notice temporary loss of these items; (4) Miss C actively used her account during this period, making credits and topping up her balance, suggesting awareness of account activity; and (5) while the scenario of an abusive ex-partner observing security details was theoretically possible, it remained less likely than Miss C's authorisation. The ombudsman also found Monzo reasonably did not flag the payments as fraud risk given their low values, spread over time, and appearance amongst legitimate activity. The account closure was handled fairly as it complied with terms and provided two months' notice.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website