Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Clydesdale Bank Plc trading as Virgin Money

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Virgin Money unfairly loaded an adverse Cifas fraud marker after his account received fraudulently obtained funds reported by a third-party bank. Mr G claimed he never used the account, lost his card, and was hacked via phishing. The ombudsman found that while Virgin Money failed to follow proper investigation procedures by not contacting Mr G first, it nevertheless met the Cifas standards required to load and retain the marker. Mr G's testimony was inconsistent with his own correspondence and lacked supporting evidence such as police reports. The ombudsman concluded Virgin Money had sufficient grounds to believe fraud occurred and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied Cifas standards requiring reasonable grounds to believe fraud occurred and clear, relevant, rigorous evidence that the customer was a witting participant. While Virgin Money failed to investigate properly by not contacting Mr G first, sufficient evidence existed to support the marker. Mr G's testimony was inconsistent (claiming never to have used the account while stating he was 'using it normally') and unsupported by corroborating evidence. The presence of two-factor authentication on transactions suggested Mr G would have been notified, yet he reported no suspicious activity. The ombudsman found Virgin Money met the burden of proof required.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website