Monzo Bank Ltd · DRN-6204048

The complaint Miss B complains that Monzo Bank Ltd will not refund her for a failed cash withdrawal despite the money being debited from her account. What happened On 3 October 2025, Miss B says she attempted to withdraw £100 using an Automated Teller Machine (‘ATM’) but no money was dispensed. She reported this to Monzo, and it provided her with a temporary refund of the £100 whilst it investigated the dispute, which involved reaching out to the owner of the ATM to obtain information about the withdrawal. But Monzo later informed Miss B that it would be re-debiting the £100 from her account, as it said the ATM owner had confirmed there was no errors during the withdrawal request. Miss B raised a complaint. In response, Monzo said: • It was sorry for any distress caused. • The ATM owner confirmed there were no errors during Miss B’s withdrawal request, and provided evidence that four £20 notes and two £10 notes were dispensed. • This meant Miss B’s claim wasn’t successful. Miss B then referred her complaint to this service where it was considered by one of our investigators. She wasn’t persuaded that Monzo, as Miss B’s payment service provider, had done enough to evidence that the £100 was successfully dispensed without error by the ATM. So she upheld Miss B’s complaint. But Monzo didn’t agree with our investigator. As well as other things, it said it’s an online bank that does not provide or operate its own ATM services. So it must follow the card scheme’s chargeback process in situations where its customer raises an ATM dispute. If it submits a chargeback and the ATM owner provides evidence that satisfies the card scheme’s requirements, then it has to close the case, which is what happened in Miss B’s case. It is not the process that it would then contact the ATM owner for even more evidence in addition to what it already provided which shows a successful dispense. It also added that as Miss B said other people had been able to use the ATM after her, and she was able to use it again herself, shows that it wasn’t affected by a technical issue or glitch which only affected Miss B’s first withdrawal attempt. As no agreement could be reached, the complaint has 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

Having done so, I’ve reached the same conclusions as our investigator, for broadly the same reasons. The Payment Services Regulations 2017 (‘PSR’s), section 75 says: (1) Where a payment service user— (a) denies having authorised an executed payment transaction; or (b) claims that a payment transaction has not been correctly executed, it is for the payment service provider to prove that the payment transaction was authenticated, accurately recorded, entered in the payment service provider's accounts and not affected by a technical breakdown or some other deficiency in the service provided by the payment service provider. So, I consider that it is Monzo’s responsibility to show that the transaction was processed correctly. This is the case even if a third-party’s machine was used, which I appreciate will always be the case where Monzo is the payment service provider. I fully appreciate Monzo is reliant on the chargeback process. But as our investigator has already pointed out, separate to that process, Monzo still needs to comply with the requirements under the PSR’s. The information Monzo has received from the ATM owner is limited to only Miss B’s transactions. The one she says was successful, and the one where she says she didn’t receive the cash. Monzo's own evidence suggests it should have at least the financial activity both before and after Miss B’s withdrawal, to evidence it occurred without any errors. This wasn’t provided to us. Miss B has been consistent when she says she tried to withdraw the £100, it didn’t come out so she stepped aside for others to use the machine (successfully). And then she tried again after a few minutes, and the withdrawal was then successful. I don’t consider the evidence Monzo has provided is enough to demonstrate the funds were dispensed correctly. I'd usually expect other information, including confirmation from the ATM owner that the machine was ‘balanced’ without any surplus. Monzo says it can't provide that due to the chargeback process. But in the circumstances of this particular case, I find Miss B’s actions that immediately followed the disputed withdrawal very credible. She tells us she contacted the ATM owner (who referred her to her bank), tried to obtain CCTV of the ATM from the adjacent shop, and even contacted the police (who told her no crime had been committed). Ultimately, I need to decide what I consider to be most likely, on the balance of probabilities. Here, I don’t find that Monzo has done enough to evidence that the £100 was successfully dispensed without error by the ATM. And so I’m upholding this complaint. Putting things right For the reasons mentioned above, Monzo Bank Ltd must: • Refund £100 to Miss B. • Ensure Miss B’s account is returned to the position it would have been in, had the £100 re-debit not taken place in December 2025.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss B to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Lorna Wall Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --