Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Monzo Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6438281 of 2026-06-30T00:00:00+00:00. Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Monzo Bank Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6438281 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-30T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Monzo Bank Limited |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr R complained that Monzo Bank Limited refused to reimburse £308.99 he paid to two individuals (S1 and S2) between 22-23 March 2026, whom he believed had scammed him. Mr R claimed he was contacted by someone purporting to be from his college, a relationship developed, and he made payments for various reasons including meeting preparation, but the promised in-person meeting never occurred and he was subsequently blocked. Monzo treated this as a civil dispute and declined reimbursement. The ombudsman found that while Mr R's loss was genuine and he was in a vulnerable state, the circumstances did not meet the definition of an Authorised Push Payment (APP) scam under the Faster Payments Scheme and CHAPS reimbursement rules because there was insufficient evidence that the individuals intended to defraud him from the outset, particularly as he received some items he expected and the payments related to relationships he believed he was building. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the APP scam definition from the Reimbursement Rules, which requires either that the recipient was not who the consumer intended to pay, or the payment was not for the purpose intended. Since Mr R paid the individuals he intended to pay (S1 and S2), the first element did not apply. For the second element, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that S1 and S2 set out to defraud Mr R from the outset. The ombudsman noted that Mr R received some of what he expected (images/pictures), that the payments related to relationships he believed he was building, and that alternative explanations existed for the hallmarks Mr R identified (such as a relationship changing for other reasons). The ombudsman concluded that fraud was not the most likely explanation based on the available evidence.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Monzo Bank Limited, all decisions | 3,042 | 25% |
| Fraud reimbursement (APP scams), all decisions | 21,192 | 21% |
| Current account, all decisions | 48,691 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website