Not upheld: CIFAS fraud marker lodgement - appropriateness of decision complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss H complained that Revolut improperly lodged a CIFAS fraud marker against her following two disputed payments (£40 and £200) into her account. Revolut had received fraud notifications from other parties regarding these payments. Miss H provided various explanations including that the funds were gifts, payment for photos, or payment for dates arranged by an ex-friend. The ombudsman found that while Miss H's explanations showed some inconsistencies and lacked supporting documentation, and the transaction patterns appeared unusual, Revolut had sufficient grounds to lodge the marker based on the totality of evidence. The complaint was not upheld and the marker was not ordered to be removed.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the evidence did not conclusively prove fraud, Revolut had sufficient grounds to lodge a CIFAS marker based on the totality of circumstances. The ombudsman noted inconsistencies in Miss H's account: multiple different explanations for the same payments, the unusual nature of repeat payments from the same person (£35 then £40) for alleged dates, the lack of supporting documentation despite the nature of her claimed business, and the implausibility of the scenarios described. The ombudsman acknowledged Miss H's honesty about embarrassing matters but found the evidence pattern itself raised legitimate concerns that met the threshold for a CIFAS marker, even if not conclusive proof of fraud.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website