Not upheld: unfair fraud marker loading complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B complained that Monzo unfairly loaded an adverse fraud marker against his name after his account received multiple reports of fraudulently obtained funds. Mr B initially claimed the funds were for holiday shopping, then changed his story to claim he was a victim of a job-fraud scheme. The ombudsman applied Cifas standards requiring reasonable grounds to believe fraud occurred and clear evidence of witting participation. Finding Mr B's explanations inconsistent, unsupported by evidence, and implausible, the ombudsman concluded Monzo met the required burden of proof and acted fairly in loading the marker. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied Cifas standards requiring reasonable grounds to believe fraud occurred and clear, relevant, rigorous evidence that the customer was a witting participant. The ombudsman found Monzo met the first standard through multiple third-party reports. For the second standard, the ombudsman found Mr B's inconsistent explanations undermined his credibility, his inability to provide supporting evidence was suspicious, and the irregular nature of communicating with an employer via social media with deleted messages was implausible. The ombudsman concluded Mr B was more likely than not a witting participant in the alleged conduct, meeting the required burden of proof.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website