Not upheld: fraud marker loading on National Fraud Database complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Revolut unfairly loaded a negative fraud marker against him after receiving three fraudulent payments totalling £55 into his account. Mr A claimed the funds were for his digital business but could only provide one partial screenshot of communications with one sender and no evidence for the second sender. The ombudsman found that while fraud was committed, Mr A's inability to provide adequate evidence of communications, product delivery, or consistent explanations for his refunds demonstrated complicity in the fraud. The ombudsman concluded Revolut acted fairly in loading the marker and rejected the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the fraud reports demonstrated a financial crime was committed, Revolut also needed to show Mr A was complicit in receiving fraudulent funds. The ombudsman concluded Mr A was complicit because: he could only provide one partial screenshot of communications for one sender; he provided no evidence of communications with the second sender; he could not provide evidence of digital products being delivered; and the refund amount exceeded the funds received, which was inconsistent with his explanations. The ombudsman found Mr A had been given a fair opportunity to respond and that the small transaction amount did not affect the threshold for loading a fraud marker.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website