Upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against J.P. Morgan Europe Limited (trading as Chase)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that Chase lodged a fraud-related CIFAS marker against his name after he went into an unauthorised overdraft in August 2024 whilst on holiday. Chase attempted to contact Mr H multiple times in November and December 2024, but Mr H did not respond due to medical difficulties he was experiencing. Chase closed his account and lodged the CIFAS marker, believing Mr H was deliberately ignoring contact and had committed fraud. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that Chase lacked clear evidence of identified fraud and failed to give Mr H adequate opportunity to explain his circumstances before lodging the marker. The ombudsman instructed Chase to remove the CIFAS marker, noting that Mr H's medical situation provided a reasonable explanation for his non-response and that defaulting the debt would have been more appropriate.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Chase failed to meet the CIFAS requirements for lodging a fraud marker. Specifically, Chase did not have clear evidence that an identified fraud was committed - they only had suspicion based on Mr H's non-response. Critically, Chase did not give Mr H an adequate opportunity to explain his circumstances before lodging the marker. The ombudsman accepted Mr H's testimony about his medical difficulties during late 2024 as a reasonable explanation for his inability to engage with Chase's contact attempts. The ombudsman noted that lodging a CIFAS marker was not mandatory and that defaulting the debt would have been the more appropriate course of action. The ombudsman concluded there was insufficient evidence of identified crime to justify the marker.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website