Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained that Monzo refused to refund two payments totalling £1,058.45 to a holiday firm on 17 October and 28 November 2025, which he claimed he had not authorised. Monzo declined to treat the transactions as fraudulent, explaining that the first payment had been authenticated using 3D Secure verification through Mr M's genuine device with biometric approval, and the second payment was made under a Continuous Payment Authority granted during the first transaction. The ombudsman found that the technical evidence, including biometric authentication and Mr M's own changing account of events, demonstrated that Mr M most likely authorised both payments himself. The ombudsman rejected Mr M's argument that the FOS should have contacted the holiday firm, finding that the Payment Services Regulations 2017 required only a determination of whether Mr M or a third party fraudster was more likely to have made the transactions. The complaint was not upheld, and the £50 compensation Monzo had already paid for service issues was deemed fair and reasonable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which place liability on the bank if the customer didn't authorise payments, and on the customer if they did. The key question was whether Mr M or a third party fraudster was more likely to have made the transactions. The technical evidence showed that Mr M's genuine device, using his biometrics, approved the first payment with 3D Secure authentication. Mr M's changing account about whether he authorised the first payment, combined with his inability to explain how a fraudster could have accessed his device and biometrics without his knowledge, led the ombudsman to conclude it was most likely that Mr M authorised both payments. The second payment was made under a Continuous Payment Authority that Mr M had granted during the first transaction, which is standard practice for holiday bookings. The vague evidence Mr M provided from the holiday firm did not persuade the ombudsman that there was no booking.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website