Monzo Bank Ltd · DRN-6221808

The complaint Mr H is unhappy Monzo Bank Ltd closed his account and registered a marker against his name with Cifas – a fraud prevention agency. What happened On 7 December 2024 Mr H received payments of £170 and £180 into his account which Monzo were notified may be fraudulent. As such Monzo contacted Mr H to ask him about the payments he’d received. The same day Mr H said these were from a family friend and intended for medical purposes. However, the following day on 8 December 2024, Mr H said he’d transported a vehicle and referred to a ‘break down situation’ - he’d also referred to setting up a business which seemed to be a transportation company. Dissatisfied with Mr H’s response Monzo closed his account and recorded a Cifas against his name. Mr H says Monzo’s actions have caused a significant impact on him including financial hardship and that he cannot open another bank account. He says this has also caused stress and anxiety. Monzo didn’t uphold the complaint. They wrote to Mr C on 29 November 2025 to say the information would remain on Cifas as the correct procedures had been followed. Our Investigator didn’t uphold the complaint either. She explained Mr H had provided two different testimonies regarding the payments and couldn’t provide anything to support that these related to a car arrangement – which is what Mr H said was now the correct version of events. Our Investigator thought in December 2024 when Monzo asked for evidence of the entitlement to the funds Mr H would’ve likely had his phone so could have provided evidence of any messages at this time. Our Investigator acknowledged Mr H felt discriminated against but based on the evidence she had she didn’t think Monzo did anything wrong in recording the Cifas marker. She also said Monzo could close the account within the account terms and conditions so she didn’t think they’d done anything wrong here either. Although she acknowledged the difficulties Mr H faced she said Monzo hadn’t made any mistakes. Mr H didn’t agree, he said he did not knowingly receive fraudulent funds. He explained although he initially said the funds were for medical expenses, he was dealing with matters overseas which was stressful so his responses were brief and not clearly expressed. He said although this created confusion, it shouldn’t be interpreted as being dishonest. He added that he couldn’t provide historic chat records due to losing his phone and that there is no evidence he had the technical ability to download or export a complete transcript. Mr H said the absence of such evidence doesn’t suggest fraudulent intent and the burden of proof remains on Monzo. As Mr H didn’t agree, the complaint has been passed to me to consider. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

-- 1 of 3 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. The marker Monzo has registered in Mr H’s case is a “misuse of facility”. In order to record a marker for misuse of facility, Monzo must be able to show a number of requirements have been met, including: • There must be reasonable grounds to believe that an identified fraud or financial crime has been committed or attempted. • The evidence must be clear, relevant and rigorous. On 7 December 2024 there were transactions for £180 and £170 which credited Mr H’s account. I’ve seen evidence from the sending bank who reported both payments as fraudulent so I’m satisfied that Monzo had reason to be concerned about the payments Mr H had received into his account. Monzo contacted Mr H to ask about the payments and what these were for. I don’t think these enquiries were unreasonable given that Monzo had concerns the payments may not be legitimate. On 7 December 2024 Mr H told Monzo these payments were from a family friend and that they sent the money for medical expenses abroad. However, on 8 December 2024, Mr H told Monzo he’d transported a vehicle and referred to a ‘break down situation’. Monzo asked for evidence such as a screenshot of a conversation between Mr H and the person who sent the two payments. Mr H provided part of a conversation he appeared to have with the sender of the funds. Whilst Mr H’s complaint was at our service, he said the payments were either part payment for car hire/use and the funds were then used to cover exchange rate differences whilst he was abroad. As such our Investigator asked whether Mr H was running a business and for further details of this. And as Mr H was abroad, how was he going to fulfil the arrangements. Unfortunately, Mr H was not forthcoming with any clear evidence to support the above. So Mr H has provided two very different accounts about his entitlement to the funds that had been received into his account on 7 December 2024. Our Investigator asked Mr H about this discrepancy and he said he couldn’t recall as this has caused him a lot of problems. Mr H subsequently said the reason for this difference is because he was dealing with matters overseas which was stressful, so his responses were brief and not clearly expressed. But even if I accept he was very stressed at the time, I don’t think this accounts for why there were two completely different versions of events. So I think Mr H’s testimony isn’t credible. I also note that the two versions Mr H put forwards to Monzo were provided only one day apart. One explanation was given on the day the funds were received, and the second explanation was the day after the funds had been received. So I find it unusual that Mr H couldn’t recall the events accurately even though such little time had passed. As Mr H had also referred to losing multiple devices and this was the reason he couldn’t provide any evidence to support his testimony, our Investigator asked for evidence of him replacing his phone. However, Mr H did not provide this evidence. I also notice that Mr H says he lost his first phone around 26 December 2025 although he cannot be sure. But if that is the case, Monzo reached out to Mr H on 7 and 8 December

-- 2 of 3 --

2025 which was prior to him losing his phone so it remains unclear why he couldn’t provide messages at this point. Overall, Mr H hasn’t been able to provide sufficient evidence to support his explanations. In these circumstances, I’m satisfied this means Monzo was entitled to register the marker with Cifas. To be clear, I’m not making any finding on Mr H’s involvement in the alleged fraudulent payment itself, just that Monzo has shown it’s registered the fraud marker correctly. I understand Mr H is unhappy his account was closed and he wasn’t provided a reason as to why Monzo decided to take this action. The terms and conditions of the account set out when Monzo can close the account with immediate effect. And I’m satisfied, in the circumstances, Monzo was entitled to do that here. Mr H also feels that he’s been discriminated against. Whilst I take on board what Mr H has said, I’ve seen no evidence to suggest this is the case and in light of all the evidence we have I do not think Monzo did anything wrong in registering the Cifas and closing Mr H’s account. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Marie Camenzuli Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --