Not upheld: Account administration errors complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G requested Monzo to block payments from merchant A in September 2025. Monzo's agent confirmed the block was applied but warned that payments using different names or details could still go through. On 24 October 2025, merchant A successfully charged £408.96 to Mr G's Flex credit card using a different business name and MCC code than what was on file. Mr G disputed the payment, which led to account arrears and negative credit file information. The ombudsman found that Monzo was not at fault because the merchant used different identifiers that fell outside the scope of the block, and Monzo had explicitly warned of this possibility. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Monzo's block was applied correctly based on the merchant details available at the time. When the merchant used a different business name and MCC code on 24 October 2025, the payment fell outside the scope of the block because Monzo's systems match payments against specific merchant identifiers. Monzo had explicitly warned Mr G that payments using different names or details could still go through. The ombudsman considered MCCs to be technical banking features that should not be expected to be discussed in detail with customers. The ombudsman also noted that Monzo advised Mr G to contact the merchant directly to request unsubscription.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website