Not upheld: scam claim / APP scam vs civil dispute classification complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss H paid £360 to an online seller for multiple items but did not receive two pairs of shoes valued at £130, though she received other items months later. She claimed this was a scam and sought a refund from Monzo under the Faster Payments Scheme Reimbursement Rules. Monzo declined, classifying it as a civil dispute, and compensated her £25 for poor customer service. The ombudsman upheld Monzo's decision, finding insufficient evidence of fraud or deception to meet the APP scam definition, as Miss H paid the intended recipient for the intended purpose and the seller's partial delivery and continued communication were atypical of fraud.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Reimbursement Rules definition of an APP scam, which requires either that the recipient is not who the consumer intended to pay, or the payment is not for the purpose intended. Miss H paid who she intended to pay and both parties appear to have intended the payment for purchase of goods. While two items were not delivered, the delivery of two items valued at £230 (over half the order value) and continued seller communication months after payment are atypical of fraud. The evidence does not convincingly demonstrate the seller's intent to defraud from the outset; it more likely represents a civil dispute over contract fulfilment. The £25 compensation for poor customer service was reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website