Monzo Bank Ltd · DRN-6242382

The complaint Mr A complains that Monzo Bank Ltd loaded a negative fraud marker against him. He’d like the marker removed and compensation for the impact. What happened Mr A had an account with Monzo. This account was closed in January 2024. A complaint about Mr A’s account, and funds returned to source, was previously raised with our service so I won’t be considering these matters any further. In March 2024 a negative fraud marker was loaded against Mr A. Between November 2023 and March 2024 Monzo received three fraud reports relating to payments transferred into Mr A’s account. The last fraud report related to a £9,988 payment received in November 2023. Monzo reached out to Mr A to ask him for details on why he received the third payment. Mr A explained the funds were received in payment for cryptocurrency via a reputable website. And he provided some screenshots to demonstrate this. But, Monzo weren’t satisfied with Mr A’s response so closed his account and loaded a negative fraud marker against his name. On discovering the negative fraud marker Mr A complained to Monzo. Monzo reviewed Mr A’s complaint and accepted they’d made an error in loading the negative fraud marker – so they removed the marker and paid Mr A £100 compensation. But Mr A didn’t accept the offer and brought his complaint to our service. On the complaint coming to our service Monzo offered an additional £150 to Mr A, bringing his total compensation to £250. However, Mr A wasn’t satisfied with the offer and asked our Investigator to consider further compensation. One of our Investigator’s looked into Mr A’s complaint and partially upheld it. They didn’t think the compensation Monzo offered was sufficient and asked them to pay an additional £150 for the impact caused to Mr A. Bringing the total compensation to £400.They also asked Monzo to return the funds which were sent to his account with another bank. Monzo accepted but Mr A didn’t. He argued that he should be compensated £50,000. As Mr A didn’t agree it’s been passed to me to decide. On reviewing Mr A’s decision, I reached a slightly different outcome to our Investigator. I agreed that Mr A had been inconvenienced by the loading of the marker and a total of £400 was fair compensation. However, I couldn’t direct Monzo to return the funds remaining in his account as this matter had previously been considered by our service. I asked both parties to reply by 13 March 2026. Monzo accepted my recommendation, but Mr A didn’t reply. So I’ve reconsidered my findings below.

-- 1 of 3 --

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. In my provisional decision I said: I realise this will disappoint Mr A but as our service has previously considered whether or not Monzo acted fairly in returning his funds to source this is something I can’t comment on. Monzo have accepted that they unfairly loaded the negative fraud marker against Mr A – so I won’t consider the fairness of the loading any further. Instead, I’ll focus on the impact of Monzo’s actions on Mr A. Mr A’s argued the negative fraud marker had a significant detrimental impact on him including preventing him from having paid employment, getting his work Visa renewed and an inability to obtain several financial products. I’ve reviewed Mr A’s submissions which are extensive. I’ve firstly considered the impact of the negative fraud marker on Mr A’s inability to work. For me to award Mr A financial compensation covering any lost salary I’d need to see evidence, and be satisfied, that the fraud marker prevented Mr A from carrying out any work. I realise this will disappoint Mr A but having reviewed the submissions he’s provided I can’t fairly conclude the fraud marker prevented him from working either with the employer he was with at the time of the loading or at an alternative employer. I’m afraid the letter from Mr A’s employer only shares the last time he worked for them but doesn’t state he wasn’t able to work for them or why. I’ve also considered the evidence Mr A’s supplied to show his Visa was refused – however I can’t see the document shows Mr A wasn’t able to obtain a Visa due to the fraud marker. This means I can’t safely conclude that Mr A’s been unable to work or obtain a Visa due to the negative fraud marker and I won’t asking Monzo to pay additional compensation for this. I’ve moved on to think about the other points Mr A’s raised – I’ve seen evidence from Mr A that shows he’s struggled to obtain financial products including credit cards, loans and current accounts. And although the evidence Mr A’s shared doesn’t directly show that he’s been unable to get these products due to the negative fraud marker I’m satisfied that’s highly likely. Any negative fraud marker loaded against a consumer will likely restrict their ability to gain credit. I’ve thought about the inconvenience that’s been caused to Mr A as a result of his difficulty in obtaining financial products, and the length of time the marker was loaded for. I realise this will disappoint Mr A but I’m satisfied an additional £300, bringing Mr A’s award to £400, is in line with our approach for trouble and upset awards. Monzo accepted my provisional decision and Mr A didn’t respond or provide any further evidence. It follows, I see no reason to change the outcome reached in my provisional decision. Putting things right I’m satisfied that a total of £400 fairly compensates Mr A for the impact caused to him by Monzo’s actions.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision My final decision is I uphold Mr A’s complaint and direct Monzo Bank Ltd to: • Pay Mr A £300 compensation for the inconvenience caused to him Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026. Jeff Burch Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --