Not upheld: CIFAS fraud marker lodgement - alleged misrepresentation in account application complaint against HSBC UK Bank plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that HSBC improperly lodged a CIFAS fraud marker after rejecting his account application in July 2023. Mr S claimed he had made limited errors in his application, specifically omitting a previous address. However, the ombudsman found that Mr S had deliberately provided false information, stating he had lived at his current address since 1 June 2020 when he later told the ombudsman he moved there in 2021, and that he was not on the electoral roll for that address despite the claimed three-year residence. The ombudsman concluded HSBC met the required evidential threshold for lodging the marker and upheld HSBC's decision, declining to order its removal.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr S deliberately omitted his previous address from his application despite being required to provide full address history. The discrepancy between Mr S's stated move date (1 June 2020 in the application versus 2021 in his testimony to the ombudsman) suggested deliberate misrepresentation rather than error. The fact that Mr S was not on the electoral roll for his claimed current address despite supposedly living there for over three years further supported this conclusion. HSBC had access to Mr S's full credit record showing his address history, defaulted debts, and CCJs, so no actual harm resulted from the omission. The ombudsman concluded HSBC met the required evidential threshold for lodging a CIFAS marker.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website