Not upheld: unauthorized credit file search and lack of consent complaint against Conister Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr E complained that Conister Bank conducted a hard credit search on his file without consent after he began but did not complete a loan application in November 2025. Mr E claimed he closed the browser before agreeing to the credit check, but Conister Bank maintained that the application process required manual selection of consent tick boxes before proceeding. The ombudsman reviewed raw data provided by Conister Bank showing the consent fields were recorded as 'on' and found no evidence of system errors. On the balance of probabilities, the ombudsman concluded Mr E most likely consented to the search and upheld Conister Bank's position that the hard search should remain on his credit file.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test, finding it most likely that Mr E consented to the hard credit search. The raw data provided by Conister Bank was complete with no indication of errors, contained all of Mr E's personal details matching his account, and showed the consent fields recorded as 'on'. While the ombudsman acknowledged Mr E's concerns about the lack of explicit timestamp data and the possibility of system errors, there was no evidence to suggest something went wrong in Mr E's specific application. The ombudsman found the data reliable and consistent with the application process requirements.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website