Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R complained that Monzo's travel insurance sales literature was misleading because the IPID stated he was covered for hire car excess up to £3,000, but the policy terms excluded this cover in the UK. Mr R had declined an excess waiver when hiring a car in August 2025 and was left with a £1,700 bill after an accident. The ombudsman found that Monzo had provided all necessary information including the IPID and policy terms, which clearly directed Mr R to check the full terms for limitations. Although the IPID did not specifically identify the UK exclusion, the ombudsman considered this was not necessary given the clear signposting to the policy terms and the fact that car hire excess cover is not typically offered within the UK by travel insurers. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Monzo provided all necessary information including the IPID and policy terms. The IPID clearly stated that limitations may apply and directed Mr R to refer to the policy terms for full cover details. Although the IPID did not specifically identify that car hire excess was unavailable in the UK, the ombudsman considered this was not necessary given the clear direction to check the policy terms. The ombudsman also noted that most travel insurers do not offer car hire excess cover within the UK, so this was not considered a significant limitation. Regarding the complaint handling issue, whilst Monzo made an error in not properly addressing Mr R's complaint points, complaint handling is not a regulated activity and the error did not warrant compensation as Mr R was still able to bring his complaint to the ombudsman without delay.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website