Upheld: Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam - reimbursement claim under CRM Code complaint against MONZO BANK LIMITED
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6344548 of 2026-06-10T00:00:00+00:00. Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam - reimbursement claim under CRM Code complaint against MONZO BANK LIMITED. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6344548 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-10T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | MONZO BANK LIMITED |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam - reimbursement claim under CRM Code |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Monzo must reimburse 69.4% of the disputed payment of £21,500 (calculated by deducting the percentage of returns received from total loss). Monzo must pay 8% simple interest per annum on the refund from the date of the investigator's view to settlement. Monzo may take an assignment of rights to future distributions under liquidation to avoid double recovery, subject to providing a draft assignment to Mr D for agreement. |
Summary
Mr D paid £21,500 to company U for a rent-to-rent property investment scheme in December 2023, with additional payments to other firms totalling £66,431.56 in 2024. He received £26,907.27 in returns before U went into administration and he suspected a scam. Monzo declined reimbursement, arguing the returns exceeded the initial payment. The ombudsman found U operated a fraudulent investment scam through dishonest deception, meeting the CRM Code definition of an APP scam. Mr D had a reasonable basis for believing the investment was legitimate based on professional documents and personal meetings. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered Monzo to reimburse 69.4% of the disputed payment (after proportionally deducting returns received across all firms) plus 8% interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Mr D's payment met the CRM Code definition of an APP scam because U operated outside the business model presented to investors through dishonest deception. Mr D had a reasonable basis for believing the investment was legitimate based on professional documents, video calls, face-to-face meetings, and knowledge that others were receiving returns. Monzo could not rely on exceptions to reimbursement under the CRM Code because it provided no effective warnings and Mr D's belief in legitimacy was reasonable. The 'returns' received should be deducted proportionally from the total loss across all three firms to ensure fair distribution.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| MONZO BANK LIMITED, all decisions | 149 | 10% |
| Current account, all decisions | 45,590 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website