Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr Y engaged a builder for significant home renovation work and made 12 bank transfers totalling £28,612.98 between January and February 2026. The builder commenced work but it slowed significantly and stopped by March 2026, with the project left incomplete and materials unprovided. Mr Y claimed this was an APP scam and requested reimbursement from Monzo, which declined on the basis it was a civil dispute. The Ombudsman upheld Monzo's decision, finding that while the builder failed to fulfil the agreement, the evidence did not establish an intent to defraud at the time of payment. The builder had completed substantial work, provided plausible reasons for delays, and the receiving bank had no scam concerns. The dispute fell outside the Reimbursement Rules' definition of an APP scam and was therefore a private civil matter for resolution through the courts.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman applied the definition of an APP scam under the Reimbursement Rules, which requires evidence that the recipient deliberately tricked the consumer into making payments for services they had no intention of providing at the time of payment. While the builder failed to complete the work and left the property in an unsatisfactory state, this alone does not constitute an APP scam. The evidence showed: (1) Mr Y paid the intended recipient; (2) the payments were for the stated purpose of home renovation work; (3) the builder did commence and complete a substantial portion of the work; (4) plausible alternative explanations existed for non-completion including poor project management, health issues, and bereavement; (5) the receiving bank had no scam concerns. The Ombudsman concluded that on the balance of probabilities, the builder's intention at the time of payment was to complete the work, and the dispute was therefore a private civil matter between Mr Y and the builder, not an APP scam covered by the Reimbursement Rules.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website