Partially upheld: failure to prevent fraud/scam - inadequate monitoring and intervention complaint against Monzo Bank Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6294610 of 2026-04-15T00:00:00+00:00. failure to prevent fraud/scam - inadequate monitoring and intervention complaint against Monzo Bank Ltd. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6294610 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-15T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Monzo Bank Ltd |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | failure to prevent fraud/scam - inadequate monitoring and intervention |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Monzo Bank Ltd must: (1) Provide Mr S with a refund of 50% of his loss for payments 6-17, totalling £1,350; (2) Pay 8% simple interest on this amount from the date of loss (20 January 2026) to the date of settlement. |
Summary
Mr S, an international student, fell victim to a sophisticated impersonation scam where fraudsters posing as police officers convinced him to purchase £3,600 in gift cards by claiming his National Insurance number was involved in money laundering and threatening arrest and deportation. Monzo rejected his refund claim. The ombudsman found Monzo should have implemented fraud interventions at payments 4 and 6 given the unusual velocity and cumulative amount of transactions, and that a human intervention would likely have uncovered the scam through probing questions and scam education. However, the ombudsman found Mr S bore some responsibility for not questioning the implausibility of police accepting gift card codes as payment. Consequently, the complaint was partially upheld with Monzo ordered to refund 50% of the loss (£1,350) plus 8% interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Monzo should have implemented an automated warning at payment 4 due to rapid consecutive payments and accumulating spend of £700. More critically, a human intervention at payment 6 should have been implemented. The ombudsman reasoned that a trained fraud agent would have: (1) explained the intervention's purpose and that scammers ask customers to lie; (2) asked if Mr S was acting on instructions and told to lie; (3) probed about the gift cards and noticed the £2,105 credit to the account; (4) identified Mr S as a potentially vulnerable international student; (5) provided scam education including information about number spoofing, fake authority figures, and gift card scams; and (6) likely uncovered the scam before payment 6 was authorised. However, the ombudsman found Mr S bore some responsibility as he should have questioned why official police would receive payment via gift card codes with no clear mechanism for refund, which should have prompted verification checks. Therefore, liability was shared equally.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Monzo Bank Ltd, all decisions | 2,799 | 27% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website