Not upheld: Account closure without notice complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss A complained that Monzo unfairly loaded a negative fraud marker on her record after she received £100 in fraudulent funds that she subsequently withdrew. Monzo had requested proof of entitlement, which Miss A provided incompletely (messages without the refund request and a photograph that appeared to be a duplicate from a previous claim, without the promised tracking information). Miss A later claimed her teenage son had unauthorised access to her account and was responsible for all activity. The ombudsman found that while Monzo was initially justified in loading the marker based on Miss A's incomplete responses, the subsequent explanation was not credible given the account's consistent usage patterns, regular funding from other accounts in her name, and the sophisticated nature of transactions, leading to the conclusion that Miss A was likely complicit in the fraud.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Monzo was initially entitled to load the marker based on Miss A's incomplete responses to their requests for proof of entitlement, the marker should not be maintained given Miss A's subsequent explanation. However, the ombudsman rejected Miss A's claim that her son acted without her knowledge, finding the account activity patterns, regular funding from other accounts in her name, consistent usage across two verified devices, and the nature of transactions (online retailers, social media marketing agencies) inconsistent with a teenager's unsupervised use. The ombudsman found it more likely that Miss A had knowledge of and was complicit in the account activity, particularly given she was actively funding the account and the suspicious circumstances around the duplicate photograph and missing tracking information.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website