Veste

Not upheld: account closure without adequate notice and refusal to provide repayment details complaint against Monzo Bank Ltd

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6293801 of 2026-04-16T00:00:00+00:00. account closure without adequate notice and refusal to provide repayment details complaint against Monzo Bank Ltd. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6293801
Decision date2026-04-16T00:00:00+00:00
FirmMonzo Bank Ltd
Productcurrent account, flex account, loan
Claim typeaccount closure without adequate notice and refusal to provide repayment details
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone ordered. The £50 compensation previously offered by Monzo was deemed inappropriate and not directed to be paid.

Summary

Mr D complained that Monzo closed his account without proper notice and refused to provide details on how to repay his outstanding flex account and loan balances until he disclosed the source of his funds. Monzo had initially given 62 days' notice but closed the account on 1 July 2025, and offered £50 compensation for the distress caused by the shortened notice period. The ombudsman found that Monzo acted within their contractual terms and regulatory obligations, that their request for source of funds was reasonable, and that the remaining funds were handled appropriately. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Monzo has broad commercial discretion to close accounts and must meet legal and regulatory obligations to monitor accounts and combat financial crime. The account closure was in line with the terms, and while Monzo did not provide detailed reasons to Mr D, they provided confidential evidence to the FOS that justified the closure. The request for source of funds information was reasonable given the circumstances of the closure. The remaining funds held were released within a reasonable time, and the £50.57 was properly held as it belonged to a company of which Mr D was no longer director.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Monzo Bank Ltd, all decisions2,79927%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website