Upheld: Account closure without notice complaint against Triodos Bank UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D complained that Triodos Bank UK Limited registered a fraud marker against him after discovering he had provided Address 1 on his application while being registered on the electoral roll at Address 2 (his parents' address). Initially, the ombudsman found the marker justified based on lack of evidence for Address 1 and strong evidence for Address 2. However, Mr D subsequently provided medical evidence showing conditions affecting memory and form-filling, along with documents proving his residence at Address 1 since 2021. The ombudsman concluded the incorrect move-in date was a mistake, not intentional deception, and that Triodos' failure to clarify with Mr D before registering the marker was a critical procedural failure. The complaint was upheld and Triodos was directed to remove the fraud marker.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Initially, the ombudsman found sufficient grounds for the marker based on lack of evidence for Address 1 and strong evidence for Address 2. However, upon receiving new information including medical evidence explaining Mr D's difficulties and documents proving his actual residence at Address 1, the ombudsman concluded the incorrect move-in date was likely a mistake rather than intentional deception. The ombudsman emphasized that Triodos' failure to clarify with Mr D before registering the marker was a critical procedural failure, particularly given the new evidence now available.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website