Not upheld: Cifas marker filing / fraud claim handling complaint against TSB Bank plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained to the FOS about TSB filing a Category 6 Cifas marker following a fraud claim from Bank A regarding a £300 transaction. Mr A initially told TSB the payment related to selling speakers online, but later claimed he was a victim of a job scam involving a TikTok For Business opportunity. The ombudsman found that TSB was justified in filing the marker because Mr A's materially inconsistent accounts, combined with his failure to raise the coaching argument until after receiving an unfavourable investigator's decision, provided reasonable grounds to believe fraud had occurred. The complaint was not upheld and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that TSB was justified in filing the Cifas marker because there were reasonable grounds to believe fraud or financial crime had occurred. The key issue was Mr A's material change in testimony from claiming the payment related to speaker sales to later claiming he was a victim of a job scam. While the ombudsman acknowledged that coaching victims to provide cover stories is common in scams, Mr A provided his cover story after the transaction had already completed, not during a bank intervention. Additionally, Mr A only raised the coaching argument in response to the investigator's unfavourable findings, not when initially questioned by TSB or when referring the complaint to the FOS. The ombudsman concluded that Mr A gave an inaccurate account to TSB and was not persuaded of his claims of no intention to mislead.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website