Not upheld: Account closure without notice complaint against Clear Score Technology Limited (trading as ClearScore)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that ClearScore unfairly permanently blocked his account after he used explicit language in communications and could not verify multiple accounts created under a previous name. ClearScore had identified fraud concerns and warned Mr H about his language before implementing the permanent block. Mr H later disclosed a mental health disability that he claimed affected his ability to cope with stress and communicate appropriately. The Ombudsman found ClearScore acted fairly because it had legitimate fraud concerns, provided a clear warning before blocking the account, was unaware of Mr H's disability at the time of the decision, and offered alternative means for Mr H to access his credit information. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman found ClearScore acted fairly in restricting the accounts due to legitimate fraud concerns, as Mr H initially stated the accounts were not his and subsequently could not verify them. The decision to permanently block access was justified by the combination of fraud concerns and Mr H's continued use of explicit language after a clear warning. Although Mr H later disclosed a mental health disability, this did not render ClearScore's prior actions unfair, as ClearScore was unaware of the condition at the time and the account closure was based on multiple factors beyond the language used. The Ombudsman noted that alternative credit reporting services were available to Mr H.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website