Not upheld: Cifas fraud marker registration and removal; potential vulnerability to financial crime complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6200652 of 2026-04-08T00:00:00+00:00. Cifas fraud marker registration and removal; potential vulnerability to financial crime complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6200652 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-08T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | Cifas fraud marker registration and removal; potential vulnerability to financial crime |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | Removal of the Cifas marker (already agreed by Halifax). No compensation ordered. |
Summary
Miss W complained that Halifax improperly registered a Cifas fraud marker on her account in 2023 after she received three fraudulent payments and failed to remove it until 2025. Halifax had asked Miss W about the payments in September 2023, and she stated they were from a family friend for personal use, claiming no documentation existed. Miss W denied being asked to receive the money for someone else when asked directly twice. In 2025, Miss W revealed she had actually been pressured into receiving the payments and complained to the ombudsman seeking compensation for the two years of financial difficulties caused by the marker. The ombudsman found the marker was correctly registered in 2023 based on available evidence and Miss W's false statements, and that Halifax's decision to remove it in 2025 was fair and reasonable, but no compensation was due because the marker had been appropriately placed initially.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the legal requirements for registering a 'misuse of facility' Cifas marker, which requires reasonable grounds to believe fraud occurred and clear, relevant, rigorous evidence. Based on the information Halifax had in 2023 – fraudulent payments that Miss W could not substantiate and her denial of being asked to receive them – the marker was appropriately registered. However, when Miss W disclosed in 2025 that she had been pressured into receiving the payments and considering her age, Halifax's decision to remove the marker was fair and reasonable. No compensation was warranted because the marker was correctly registered based on available information at the time, and Miss W's failure to disclose the true circumstances in 2023 meant Halifax could not have made a different decision then.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax, all decisions | 117 | 8% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website