Monzo Bank Ltd · DRN-5825879

The complaint H, a sole trader, has complained Monzo Bank Ltd (‘Monzo’) won’t reimburse her £550 she says she lost to a scam. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to all parties, so I won’t repeat it in detail here. But in summary, I understand it to be as follows. H told us they are a small business owner and, in July 2025 she registered and booked onto a fair – which I’ll refer to going forwards as ‘UAF’. H thought the fair looked to be reputable and a high-quality art fair – stating the organisers had made a number of claims about its professional standing and public reputation. H proceeded to pay a 50% deposit of £550 to secure an exhibition stand at a fair/event to take place in 2026. However, H said after paying she discovered negative reviews and subsequently also contacted a previous exhibitor whom she says confirmed the organiser had misrepresented the success. H contacted the organiser of UAF after making the payment and requested a refund. However, UAF said it was a non-refundable deposit (non-refundable clause in the contract) and so no refund was issued. H withdrew from the fair. H contacted Monzo to raise a scam claim. H feels she has been scammed by UAF as she feels she was misled before making the payment. H’s added that she was met with aggressive and manipulative messages from the organiser after requesting a refund. H strongly believes there is misrepresentation, coercive sales tactics, and unfair commercial practice going on. Monzo considered the matter, but it did not consider it was liable for H’s loss. In summary, this was because it thought what had happened was a civil matter. Unhappy with Monzo’s response, H brought the complaint to this service. One of our Investigators looked into things. But she agreed with Monzo, that this was most likely a civil dispute, and so H was not entitled to a refund of the payment she had made. H didn’t agree with our Investigator’s view, maintaining that what had happened was a scam. As agreement couldn’t be reached, the complaint has been passed to me for a final decision. 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. I intend to keep my final decision relatively brief here and I’m very aware that I’ve summarised this complaint briefly, in less detail than has been provided, and in my own words. No discourtesy is intended by this. Instead, I’ve focussed on what I think is the heart

-- 1 of 4 --

of the matter here. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it. I haven’t. Instead, it’s because the evidence and outcome have already been explained to H (and Monzo) by our Investigator. And having considered what our Investigator has said, whilst thinking about the available information and evidence myself, I see no reason to reach a different outcome. I’ll explain why. When considering what is fair and reasonable in this case, I’ve thought about the relevant rules that were in place at the time these disputed payments were made. From 7 October 2024, Payment Services Providers in the UK, like Monzo, have been bound by the Faster Payments Scheme (FPS) and the CHAPS reimbursement rules (“Reimbursement Rules”). Under these rules, most victims of Authorised Push Payment (APP) scams should be reimbursed – but “private civil disputes” are not covered. I’ve therefore considered whether what has happened between H and UAF meets the Reimbursement Rules’ definition of an APP scam or could more reasonably be classed as a civil dispute. The Reimbursement Rules define an APP Scam as: “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” By contrast, a private civil dispute is defined as; “A dispute between a consumer and payee which is a private matter between them for resolution in the civil courts, rather than involving criminal fraud or dishonesty”. In its published policy statement PS23/3, the Payment Systems Regulator gave further guidance: “2.6 Civil disputes do not meet our definition of an APP fraud as the customer has not been deceived […] The law protects consumer rights when purchasing goods and services, including through the Consumer Rights Act.” 2.5 provides an example of when this might apply: “…such as where a customer has paid a legitimate supplier for goods or services but has not received them, they are defective in some way, or the customer is otherwise dissatisfied with the supplier. So, in order to consider what has happened here as an APP scam, I would need to be satisfied that it involves criminal deception. The evidence for this would therefore need to be convincing. Having thought about this carefully, I’m not satisfied that H’s payment is covered by the Reimbursement Rules. UAF – the organiser/fair was the intended recipient and was who received the funds. And, I haven’t seen evidence that persuades me H’s funds weren’t to be used for the intended purpose. Albeit I note that here, H was making a payment for a service in the future (fair to be held in 2026) but that H withdrew from the fair before it took place. The allegation of fraud is a serious one. While I can reach my findings on the balance of probabilities (rather than beyond all reasonable doubt for example), to find UAF/the

-- 2 of 4 --

organiser did intend to defraud H, I’d need to see convincing evidence to show fraud is the most likely explanation over any other possibility. I recognise that H has expressed concerns around the credibility, transparency, and professionalism of the fair (event), in particular H feels the organiser continues to promote fabricated testimonials and has raised concerns around the organisers behaviour. I’d like to assure H that I don’t underestimate or attempt to diminish how she feels. But concerns about the quality of the fair are not enough to show that what happened was an APP scam. That’s because the key issue is whether UAF/ the organiser’s intention at the time of the payment was to defraud H. I accept that H has referred to negative reviews found online and has questioned the testimonials promoted by UAF - providing evidence of H’s contact with a previous exhibitor. But I have to keep in mind that the comments of the third party were expressing their opinion on the fair. While I note the testimonial shown from the previous exhibitor and their communication with H indicates some differences around the sales made, I’ve not seen anything that explicitly states or safely concludes that the testimonial is fabricated. In any event, I don’t think I can overlook the fact that testimonials represent an individual’s opinion. While there may be negative reviews, I can see there are also positive ones. So I don’t find this point in and of itself shows that UAF/the organiser set out with the intention to defraud H at the time the payment was made. Based on everything I’ve seen and been told, the information suggests that the company (UAF) H paid was legitimate. From my research, it indicates that UAF has been organising fairs for a number of years and that fairs have taken place. As said above, there are also positive reviews online about it. I’m aware H feels strongly that UAF/ the organiser has acted unprofessional and has concerns about their behaviour. These concerns relate to misrepresentation, coercive sales tactics, and unfair commercial practice. I’ve thought carefully about what H has shared, but these aspects more closely resemble a complaint about the quality of the service to be received (event in the future). In addition, if H has concerns relating to the contents of the agreement/contract entered into with UAF – around the non-refundable terms, then this is something H would need to pursue further via alternative means. This isn’t something this service or Monzo could get involved in. I accept that it’s possible H was misled about the event in some way, but the fair H booked onto wasn’t scheduled to take place until 2026. As such, it would be difficult to safely conclude that UAF had a different purpose in mind when it received H’s payment. Looking at the communication H has provided, I can see the organiser/UAF, after H initially requested a refund, tried to provide assurances and did offer to talk with her to reassure her. UAF/ the organiser also said it was happy to pass on the contact of a previous exhibitor who had booked with the event yearly for around 18 years. I can also see that H and UAF/the organiser exchanged several emails in relation to the refund request. While this factor doesn’t rule out the possibility of fraud, this is not usual behaviour for a scammer. More typically, once a scammer has taken money from their victims, they will not reach out to them or continue contact. Overall, I’m persuaded, on balance, that it is more likely than not that there was an intention to provide the service (in the future) by UAF at the time H made the payment. So, although H feels she’s been misled, and that UAF/ the organiser wasn’t very professional, H’s purpose was to pay a deposit to secure an exhibition stand at a fair and UAF’s purpose was to sell it to her – so these do match. H received an invoice for the 50% deposit amount and signed a contractual agreement relating to the fair and the stand reservation, but H decided to withdraw from the event. Based on what I’ve seen, it appears

-- 3 of 4 --

H’s issues stem from concerns about the quality, professionalism and credibility of the fair and its organiser, which is something that isn’t covered by the Reimbursement Rules. It follows, I’m unable to say it meets the above definition and criminal bar, of a scam. I don’t say this to downplay or diminish what’s happened, or to say there isn’t a valid issue between H and UAF – I can see there is a dispute and what appears to be a breakdown in the relationship between H and UAF/ the organiser, but for the reasons explained, I’m not persuaded the concerns raised go far enough to suggest the seller (UAF) was operating a scam. I acknowledge H has shared she’s been in contact with Citizens Advice and Action Fraud. But I’ve not seen any information that shows Action Fraud have undertaken a substantive investigation. While I’m mindful it isn’t necessary for a criminal conviction to have been secured or for charges to have been brought for what happened here to meet the Reimbursement Rules definition of an APP scam - the fact that the relevant authorities appear not to have pursued a substantive investigation into the allegations raised by H suggests to me that the evidence presented does not, on its own, carry sufficient weight to support a finding of fraud. Overall, having thought very carefully about all that H has said, and about the evidence provided by all parties to this complaint, I’m not persuaded that I can safely say with any certainty that UAF set out with an intent to defraud H. I know this will be a huge disappointment to H, and I appreciate how strongly she feels about this case. But for the reasons I’ve explained above, I do not consider that it was unreasonable for Monzo to decline H’s claim under the relevant Reimbursement Rules. For completeness, I note there was reference made to recovering the funds via a chargeback claim. As the payment H made was by faster payment and not a card payment, Monzo would be unable to raise a chargeback claim in this case. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask H to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Staci Rowland Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --