Not upheld: Cifas marker registration and credit file reporting accuracy complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Barclays incorrectly registered a Cifas marker against him and failed to update a default on his credit file after he repaid the debt. Mr A had disputed over 100 transactions in 2024, claiming an unknown third party accessed his account after he sold his iPhone. Barclays investigated, held Mr A liable, and when the resulting overdraft went unpaid, registered a default and referred him to Cifas for misuse of facility. The ombudsman found that technical evidence (same device, same IP address for disputed and undisputed transactions) combined with Mr A's continued account activity made it unlikely a third party was responsible, meeting the evidential threshold for the Cifas marker. Whilst the ombudsman agreed Barclays should have updated the default when Mr A repaid in February 2025, it found the £200 compensation offer fair as the Cifas marker would have been the primary cause of any detriment.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Barclays met the evidential threshold for a Cifas marker because the technical evidence (same device, same IP address) combined with the pattern of spending and Mr A's continued use of the account made it unlikely that an unknown third party was responsible. The ombudsman rejected Mr A's explanation about selling his iPhone as lacking corroboration and inconsistent with the evidence. Regarding the default, whilst Barclays erred in not updating it when repaid, the ombudsman found £200 fair compensation because the Cifas marker (not the default) would have been the primary cause of any detriment.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website