Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P complained about how Monzo handled his chargeback requests relating to unauthorized recurring charges from an eSIM merchant. Mr P initially submitted dispute forms categorizing the transactions as fraudulent, but Monzo correctly advised him to resubmit using the goods and services dispute category since he had authorized the initial transaction. When Mr P resubmitted in December 2025, several chargeback requests were rejected as being outside the 120-day time limit under Mastercard rules. The ombudsman found that Monzo acted reasonably in requiring the correct dispute category, applying time limits appropriately, and acting promptly in informing Mr P of the need to resubmit. Several transactions were already out of time before Mr P's initial submission, and Mr P had sufficient time to resubmit the remaining claims. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that chargebacks are governed by voluntary card scheme rules rather than legislation, with specific conditions and time limits. Monzo was entitled to require Mr P to use an appropriate dispute category (goods and services rather than fraud) since Mr P had provided his card details and the dispute concerned contractual terms. The ombudsman considered it reasonable for Monzo to assess time limits from when valid chargeback requests were submitted with the correct category. Several transactions were already outside the 120-day time limit before Mr P's initial submission, and Mr P had sufficient time to resubmit after being informed of the correct category. Even if Monzo had provided earlier warnings, the merchant's defense of the transactions and lack of clear evidence of effective cancellation meant the chargeback claims would likely have been unsuccessful.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website