Not upheld: Account closure without notice complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss O complained that Monzo unfairly loaded a negative fraud marker against her after she received £500 in fraudulent funds and transferred them out via an international platform. Monzo had contacted Miss O three times requesting proof of entitlement, but she provided only vague explanations and inconsistent evidence. When Miss O later explained to FOS that the funds were from a personal relationship contact, the ombudsman found her account implausible due to inconsistencies with her earlier statements, the suspicious timing and nature of the transaction, and her rapid transfer of funds to Nigerian Naira. The ombudsman upheld Monzo's decision that Miss O was complicit in receiving the fraudulent funds and therefore fairly loaded the fraud marker.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Monzo had clear evidence a financial crime was committed, they also needed to establish Miss O was complicit in receiving the funds. The ombudsman was not persuaded by Miss O's explanation that she was an unwitting recipient because: her explanations were inconsistent between Monzo and FOS; the messages she provided were one-sided, undated, and did not detail the amount; the payment came from an account not in J's name with a concert ticket reference contradicting her explanation; she did not question these discrepancies with J; and she transferred almost the entire sum to Nigerian Naira within 20 minutes, suggesting knowledge of the fraud. The ombudsman found Miss O's claim of discomfort sharing personal details unconvincing given the seriousness of the situation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website