Not upheld: APP scam reimbursement claim / classification of transaction as civil dispute complaint against Monzo Bank Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs I, a director of company J, engaged an electrician (Mr R) to install a metal consumer unit and provide an EICR certificate. After paying £325 as a deposit and a further £325 (including £150 for inspection and certificate), Mr R ceased communication and never provided the inspection or certificate. Mrs I reported this to Monzo as a scam and requested reimbursement of the £150. Monzo declined, classifying it as a civil dispute rather than a scam, and paid £30 for poor service. The ombudsman upheld Monzo's decision, finding insufficient evidence of fraud because Mr R had completed the installation work, no other fraud reports existed against him, and there was no evidence he criminally deceived Mrs I about his ability to issue certificates.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Faster Payments Scheme and CHAPS Reimbursement Rules definition of an APP scam, which requires fraudulent or dishonest conduct to manipulate or deceive a consumer. The threshold for finding fraud is high (more likely than not). The ombudsman concluded there was insufficient evidence of fraud because: (1) Mr R completed a significant part of the agreed work (installation), suggesting legitimacy; (2) no other fraud reports existed against Mr R's account; (3) no negative online reviews indicated scam activity; and (4) there was insufficient evidence that Mr R criminally deceived Mrs I about his ability to issue certificates. While sympathetic to Mrs I's situation, the ombudsman found it reasonable for Monzo to classify this as a civil dispute rather than a scam.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website