Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs L complained that Monzo Bank Limited failed in its duty of care by allowing her to make over £60,000 in gambling deposits without intervention, claiming she was a vulnerable customer. Monzo identified only £6,000 in actual gambling transactions between May and June 2025, with individual transactions of £50 or less and maximum daily totals of £250. The ombudsman found that Mrs L's account remained in credit throughout, no payments were returned as unpaid, and she had not disclosed her gambling addiction to Monzo until August 2025. The ombudsman rejected the complaint, finding that Monzo had no clear signs of financial harm or vulnerability that would have triggered intervention, and that banks have no obligation to monitor transactions on a transaction-by-transaction basis or specifically for gambling activity.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied FCA guidance on vulnerable customers and Consumer Duty obligations, finding that while firms must monitor for unusual activity and foreseeable harm, there is no requirement for transaction-by-transaction monitoring or specific monitoring for gambling transactions as gambling is legitimate. The ombudsman found no clear signs of financial harm (account in credit, no returned payments, no overdrafts) and considered the transaction sizes (max £50 each) and daily totals (max £250) insufficient to trigger intervention without other risk indicators. The pattern of inter-account transfers and late-night transactions, without additional risk factors, did not constitute grounds for intervention.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website