Not upheld: CIFAS marker application; alleged misuse of CIFAS system complaint against Amplifi Capital (U.K.) Limited, trading as Reevo Money

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained that Reevo Money incorrectly applied a CIFAS 'Misuse of Facility – Evasion of Payment' marker after he defaulted on an unsecured loan, arguing the marker was applied due to financial hardship rather than fraud or deception. Mr C had applied for the loan in December 2023 with stable employment, but his financial situation deteriorated before the first payment in February 2025, which he did not make. He did not contact Reevo to explain his difficulties or respond to multiple contact attempts over two years. The ombudsman found that Mr C's conduct—particularly the combination of non-payment, non-engagement, and failure to communicate—was reasonably interpreted as evasive conduct consistent with deliberate non-payment, providing Reevo with reasonable grounds to apply the marker under CIFAS rules. Although the ombudsman criticised Reevo for inappropriately conditioning marker reconsideration on loan repayment, the complaint was not upheld and the marker was not required to be removed.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr C's conduct—specifically the combination of non-payment, complete non-engagement with Reevo despite multiple contact attempts, failure to communicate difficulties, and failure to explain changed circumstances—was consistent with deliberate evasion rather than mere inability to pay. Although Mr C did not anticipate job loss when applying, he must have known he would miss the first payment and had a contractual obligation to communicate this. The ombudsman agreed that Reevo held reasonable grounds to believe evasive conduct had occurred, meeting the CIFAS threshold of 'reasonable grounds' (not requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt). However, the ombudsman noted that Reevo acted inappropriately by linking marker reconsideration to loan repayment, as these are separate matters.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website