Veste

Not upheld: scam reimbursement / authorised push payment (APP) fraud complaint against MONZO BANK LIMITED

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6272253 of 2026-06-04T00:00:00+00:00. scam reimbursement / authorised push payment (APP) fraud complaint against MONZO BANK LIMITED. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6272253
Decision date2026-06-04T00:00:00+00:00
FirmMONZO BANK LIMITED
ProductCurrent account
Claim typescam reimbursement / authorised push payment (APP) fraud
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNo remedy ordered. Monzo's decision to decline reimbursement was upheld.

Summary

Mr O purchased a vehicle for £8,500 through a social media marketplace but did not receive it and claimed to be a victim of a scam. He requested reimbursement from Monzo, which declined based on the transaction not meeting APP scam reimbursement criteria. The ombudsman found multiple concerning features in Mr O's account including discrepancies between companies, payments to a personal account, minimal due diligence checks, a very brief video verification, and implausible assumptions about address confirmation. The ombudsman concluded the circumstances did not constitute an APP scam and upheld Monzo's decision to decline reimbursement.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found multiple concerning features that indicated Mr O had not been the victim of an APP scam. These included: discrepancies between the company in correspondence and the company on the invoice with reversed dates; payments made to a personal account unrelated to the company; lack of basic due diligence checks on the company; an extremely brief video call that provided insufficient verification; and implausible assumptions about address confirmation without direct communication. The cumulative effect of these circumstances meant the transaction did not meet the definition of an APP scam under the Faster Payments Scheme reimbursement rules.

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