Monzo Bank Ltd · DRN-6121402

The complaint Miss G complains that Monzo Bank Ltd won’t refund the money she says she’s lost to a scam. What happened Miss G says that she saw an advertisement on social media for custom-built media walls by a company I’ll refer to as ‘R’. Miss G agreed a price with R and paid a £750 deposit from her account with Monzo via faster payment on 16 September 2025. R visited her property twice to take measurements and collect instructions, but installation was repeatedly delayed and R has now blocked her. Miss G believes that R never intended to provide the agreed service. She raised a fraud claim with Monzo on 23 October 2025. Monzo thought the matter was a civil dispute rather than a scam, and so declined to refund Miss G. She complained about its decision, then referred her complaint to our Service when Monzo maintained its stance. Our investigator didn’t uphold Miss G’s complaint. On balance, they agreed this was likely a civil dispute. Miss G has appealed the investigator’s outcome, and her complaint has now been passed to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. It’s not in dispute that Miss G authorised the disputed payment. That means the starting position is that she’s liable for it. In line with the Payment Services Regulations, firms are expected to process payment instructions without undue delay. However, Miss G says she made the payment as part of an Authorised Push Payment (‘APP’) scam. From 7 October 2024, Payment Services Providers in the UK are bound by the Faster Payments Scheme (‘FPS’) reimbursement rules. Under these rules, most victims of APP scams should be reimbursed. To decide whether Monzo should refund Miss G’s payment, I’ve therefore considered whether this issue meets the reimbursement rules’ definition of an APP scam: “Where a person uses a fraudulent or dishonest act or course of conduct to manipulate, deceive or persuade a consumer into transferring funds from the consumer’s relevant account to a relevant account not controlled by the consumer, where: • The recipient is not who the consumer intended to pay; or • The payment is not for the purpose the consumer intended” Monzo has argued this matter is a private civil dispute rather than a scam. Such disputes – defined as “A dispute between a consumer and payee which is a private matter between

-- 1 of 2 --

them for resolution in the civil courts, rather than involving criminal fraud or dishonesty” – aren’t covered by the reimbursement rules. I can understand why Miss G feels she has been scammed if she hasn’t received the service she paid for, or her money back. But it seems clear that the disputed payment went to the person she intended to pay. And, having carefully weighed up all the available evidence, I’m not persuaded on balance that there was a deception or mismatch regarding the payment purpose. It seems at least as likely that both Miss G and R intended the disputed payment as a deposit for a custom-built social media wall when it was made, but something went wrong at a later date. I say this because: • R’s social media page remains active, includes numerous photos of work R has completed in recent times and showcases R’s workshop. Additionally, Miss G says that R showed her testimonials it had received from satisfied clients and attended her property on two separate occasions to prepare for the work she’d instructed. Overall, I’m persuaded that R is/was operating a business building custom wood furniture and it seems likely that R intended to carry out the agreed works at the time the disputed payment was made. • I’ve seen evidence that R received several credits into its account linked to renovation works at around the relevant time, and that there haven’t been any other recent fraud claims made against R – indicating successful transactions. • R’s bank has confirmed that the account Miss G paid into has been open and active for several years, and it has no concerns about the account. In the circumstances, I don’t think it was unfair for Monzo to reject Miss G’s claim under the FPS reimbursement rules. And I don’t think there is any other reason why the bank should refund any financial loss. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, my final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss G to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Kyley Hanson Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --