Thank you, Dan, that insight into the way things work is useful!
So, to follow up on that reasoning, can I make a case of asking Monzo for that interim refund/ interest-free “loan” of the money I was defrauded of before the matters settles?
You should stop providing entirely false information. It’s not true at all.
First of all, if the claim fails but the evidence you have provided was accurate and you gave a true record of events, they will not claim the money back from you.
I said earlier on it’s only in cases where the merchant genuinely should have the money, i.e. falsified evidence or a chargeback that shouldn’t have happened that the money would be claimed back.
It’s not in effect an interest free loan because your actual money is returned to the bank (and therefore your account with banks except Monzo).
1 Like
And I fear that may be the case, I have reason to believe that the scammer ran away and made himself uncontactable… 
That’s a real shame that it’s happened, though at least you know you’ll get your money back at some point in the next few months.
1 Like
This is not true. Please stop repeating this.
2 Likes
You can see it’s true from the amount of times businesses have gone bust, have no money left, and chargebacks are successful because the banks swallow the cost so consumers are not out of pocket.
I don’t know why anyone would dispute this isn’t the case
That is unequivocally false, and unless you can back that up with a source as opposed to anecdotal experiences, I’ll call it out as so.
Quite frankly, disputes are not always as clear cut and are sometimes complex. To say a bank will refund you 100% of the time as long as you are truthful is absurd. For example, you may believe you were in good standing with a companies terms and conditions, but you were not. After a Mastercard investigation, it is deemed the merchant was correct. But, seen as though you didn’t lie - you get a refund anyway. FYI, the bank doesn’t get involved in the investigation, only Mastercard does. So quite frankly, the bank wouldn’t even know if you were technically telling the truth when the chargeback fails anyway.
Banks do not swallow the cost, as they do not provide any protection at all with card payments. The payment networks DO provide protection incase of insolvency. So Mastercard would be on the hook, not the bank.
It appears as you’ve tried piecing some pockets of experience and knowledge into a basis to form your own facts and then assumed nobody would dispute it if it’s wrong.
6 Likes
Unfortunately not. With respects to chargebacks, Monzo just follows the Mastercard dispute code, which does not include a temporary payment facility.
Some other banks go above and beyond the Mastercard expectations by providing their customers with the money.
To offer such a service would undoubtedly be quite expensive, and quite risky. I assume Monzo doesn’t offer something similar at the moment due to their drive to breakeven and reducing costs. It is a shame though, as it would materially help people that have been wronged during a process that can take a huge deal of time.
4 Likes
But do I know for certain that I’d get my money back? Of course I was accurate in my account of the “events”, just like the other hundreds, maybe thousands of this fraudulent company’s customers who were scammed.
In my case, the guy stated that his company had gone bust in that announcement put up on his website before taking the site down altogether and vanishing in thin air.
He even applied for his company to be stricken off the register on Companies House at around the same time.
Does someone here know whether a company is more easily held responsible from a legal investigation point of view if it still registered and not yet stricken off? In other words, does it make it easier for Mastercard to get the money back and then return it to Monzo/ me while this scammer’s company is still on the Companies House register and not yet “dissolved”?
There is no guarantee that they’ll get their money. None at all. This is not section 75 protection. The customer will only get their money back if we win the chargeback.
1 Like
What’s happened your monzo staff account? 
1 Like
I don’t work disputes, and my knowledge of this comes from outside of Monzo (disclaimer there) but if MasterCard continues to hold some of the merchant’s funds then it’s possible to win a chargeback and get your money back.
So for example where companies held significant funds for companies such as airlines where there were concerns that they might go bust, then some consumers got their funds back that way - through a chargeback.
However @Rika knows a lot more about these processes than I do, so she can give a more accurate answer!
1 Like
From U.K. Finance:
“However, it is important to note there is not an automatic legal right to receive your money back through chargeback rights or Section 75, as this will depend upon all the relevant facts in each case. Key facts include the supplier’s terms and conditions, the scheme rules under which your card is issued e.g. Mastercard, Visa or Amex, applicable government laws and regulations and the approach taken by your card issuer.“
1 Like
Is there a difference between a chargeback and a claim under section75
My understanding is that section75 comes from the consumer credit act which means if you’ve paid for it on your credit card or used to your overdraft then you’re covered.
If you’ve used your debit card and using your own funds then is that where this becomes not as certain?
1 Like
AFAIK: Section 75 means the credit card company is liable to refund you, they may try to claim the funds back themselves from the retailer/merchant using the chargeback process.
The chargeback process is voluntary, has no legal basis and is done at the discretion of the bank and, in our case, MasterCard.
1 Like
Hrmm.
I didn’t realise I wasn’t logged into my staff account on my phone 
5 Likes
I wonder if that was done for the consumer or if it’s because it’s better for administrators to deal with 3 companies (assuming Amex, Visa and MasterCard) than 100s or even 1000’s of small creditors who would likely never see a penny
My understanding is that Section 75 protection doesn’t cover purchases where an overdraft is used.