Not upheld: unauthorised transactions and refund claim complaint against Monzo Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6346441 of 2026-05-11T00:00:00+00:00. unauthorised transactions and refund claim complaint against Monzo Bank Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6346441 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-11T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Monzo Bank Limited |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | unauthorised transactions and refund claim |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr B complained that Monzo refused to refund him for unauthorised transactions on his account, claiming his phone was briefly pickpocketed in a busy bar on 27 September 2025 and that someone used it to make a £20,000 transfer between his accounts and two card payments. Monzo declined the claim, arguing the transactions were made using Mr B's genuine card and PIN and completed through his Monzo app on his device. The ombudsman found that the security protections on Mr B's phone and app (Face ID and passcode), combined with the fact that Mr B provided a verified selfie to Monzo just 18 minutes after the transfer without reporting unusual activity, made it implausible that a third party could have completed these transactions. The ombudsman also found it unlikely that someone could have removed Mr B's card from his wallet and replaced it without his knowledge. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found it implausible that a third party could have accessed Mr B's phone (protected by Face ID and passcode) and Monzo app (also protected by Face ID and passcode) without his knowledge. The fact that Mr B provided a selfie to Monzo at 04:45, just 18 minutes after the £20,000 transfer, and did not report any unusual activity at that time, suggested he had possession of his phone and was accessing his banking app himself. Regarding the card payments, the ombudsman found it unlikely that someone could have removed Mr B's card from his wallet and replaced it without his knowledge, particularly given that Mr B was carrying his wallet on him. While Mr B suggested he might have been observed entering his PIN, this did not explain how the card could have been taken and returned without detection.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Monzo Bank Limited, all decisions | 170 | 11% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website