Not upheld: scam reimbursement claim complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M purchased a car for £2,400 from an online auction site seller in November 2025. After receiving the car, he discovered serious mechanical issues and claims the seller misrepresented the vehicle's condition and withheld documentation. When the seller disappeared after Mr M sought a refund, he complained to Monzo claiming he was a victim of fraud. Monzo declined to refund the payment, stating it was a civil matter. The Ombudsman upheld Monzo's decision, finding that although the car was defective, this constituted a civil dispute regarding goods quality rather than an APP scam, as both parties intended the payment to be for a car purchase and Mr M received the vehicle he intended to buy.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman applied the APP Scam Reimbursement rules definition of a scam, which requires that either the recipient was not who the consumer intended to pay, or the payment was not for the purpose the consumer intended. The Ombudsman found that both Mr M and the seller intended the payment to be for the purchase of a car, and Mr M did receive a car in exchange. Although the car was defective and not of the quality expected, this constitutes a civil dispute regarding the quality of goods received, which is specifically excluded from the definition of an APP scam. The Ombudsman noted that while Mr M may have consumer protection remedies against the seller, this does not make the transaction a scam for which Monzo should be responsible.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website