Not upheld: APP scam reimbursement claim / civil dispute classification complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss M paid £298 to Company L for leaflet printing and distribution services but became concerned when Company L did not provide GPS tracking reports to verify delivery. She claimed this was an Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam and requested reimbursement from Monzo. Monzo declined, classifying the matter as a civil dispute rather than fraud. The ombudsman upheld Monzo's decision, finding that Miss M paid the intended recipient for the intended purpose and that the absence of GPS tracking documentation does not constitute evidence of criminal deception. Company L's 25-year business history, professional communications, and absence of fraud reports against its account all supported the conclusion that this was a service quality dispute rather than a scam.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Reimbursement Rules definition of APP scam, which requires criminal deception. The key finding was that Miss M paid the intended recipient (Company L) for the intended purpose (leaflet printing and distribution). While Company L may have failed to provide GPS tracking reports as promised, this absence does not automatically prove non-delivery and does not demonstrate criminal intent to defraud. The company's 25-year website history, professional communications, and absence of other fraud reports against its account all suggest legitimate business operations. Any dispute about service quality constitutes a civil matter between consumer and supplier, not an APP scam covered by the Reimbursement Rules.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website