[2025] UKUT 346 (AAC)

It was explained to Mr Hartley that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is one of review rather than rehearing. The Tribunal went through the chronology and the OTC letters which made clear that the bank statements were not compliant because of the absence of “Limited” in the title of the statements he had provided. He was asked when the “penny finally dropped” about what was needed to show that the bank account was in fact for a limited company, but the answer was unclear although both Mr Hartley and Mr Barrett averred that they had already asked Monzo to convert the “trading as” account to a company account and were in the process of setting up a Revolut Business account, which is the business banking arm of Monzo when the application was refused.

We are satisfied that the letter from Monzo dated 10^th March 2025 should not have been taken to be the final position when the company had been given until 17^th March 2025 to provide compliant bank statements, despite the rather tortuous history. At the very least, Mr Hartley should have been notified that the letter did not take matters any further and that he should have been reminded of the deadline. The tribunal cannot speculate what the outcome would have been if in response to the reminder, Mr Hartley had explained the factual matrix between Monzo and Revolut and that he had already taken the necessary steps to convert the existing account to a business account with Revolut.