Not upheld: CIFAS fraud marker lodgement - application fraud complaint against Starling Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss S complained that Starling Bank improperly lodged a CIFAS fraud marker in her name for application fraud. Starling had identified unusual payments into her account and discovered a fraudulent application to open another account using her photographic ID but a different name, with video evidence suggesting the same person and device were involved. When queried, Miss S provided unsubstantiated explanations for the payments and failed to respond to requests for further evidence. The ombudsman upheld Starling's decision, finding they had sufficient evidence meeting CIFAS requirements to lodge the marker, and rejected Miss S's claims of being a victim of ID fraud as unconvincing.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the CIFAS requirements that there must be reasonable grounds to believe an identified fraud has been committed and the evidence must be clear, relevant and rigorous. Starling provided evidence of a fraudulent application using Miss S's photographic ID, video evidence suggesting the same person opened both accounts, and device linking. Miss S failed to provide substantiating evidence for her explanations and did not respond to further requests for information. The ombudsman found Miss S's evidence of being a victim of ID fraud unconvincing, while Starling's confidential evidence showed another account sending payments to Miss S was involved in money laundering. The ombudsman concluded Starling had sufficient evidence to lodge the marker.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website