Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against MONZO BANK LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs G and Mr B complained that Monzo refused to refund a £400 cash withdrawal they claimed was unauthorised. Monzo held them liable because the transaction was made using Mrs G's genuine debit card and PIN. The ombudsman examined whether an unauthorised third party could have made the transaction, considering that the PIN's last recorded use was 14 January 2026 and the disputed transaction occurred on 31 January 2026. The ombudsman found the pattern of a single withdrawal inconsistent with typical fraud behaviour and rejected claims of card cloning based on transactional data. Ultimately, the complaint was not upheld as Monzo acted fairly in holding the customers liable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Service Regulations 2017 standard that a firm can hold a customer liable if evidence suggests it is more likely than not that they authorised the transaction. While use of a genuine card and PIN is important, the ombudsman required Monzo to show the customer likely authorised it. The key reasoning was that an unauthorised third party would have needed to obtain the PIN by 14 January 2026 and then wait 17 days to use the card only once, which is inconsistent with typical fraud patterns where perpetrators maximise their gain through multiple transactions. The ombudsman also rejected the possibility of a cloned card as the transactional data showed the genuine card was used.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website