Upheld: improper fraud marker registration complaint against Metro Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that Metro Bank improperly registered a Cifas fraud marker against him following a £5,000 payment received from a prospective buyer of a family business he was helping to sell. Metro had received a fraud report from another bank and, after Mr H failed to respond to an email inquiry (which went to his junk folder), registered the marker without further investigation. Mr H provided evidence of the business sale arrangement, including screenshots of conversations and business advertising records. The ombudsman found that Metro had not satisfied the Cifas 'four pillars' test for fraud marker registration, particularly because the fraud report was incomplete and could not rule out a civil dispute. The complaint was upheld, the marker was removed, and £150 compensation was awarded for trouble and upset.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Metro had not met the Cifas requirements for registering a fraud marker. Specifically, Metro failed to satisfy the 'four pillars' test which requires reasonable grounds to believe a crime was committed, clear and rigorous evidence, and specific case types. The ombudsman noted that the fraud report was incomplete, making it impossible to rule out that this was simply a civil dispute between a buyer and seller. While Mr H had not provided evidence that the deposit was non-refundable, the ombudsman was not satisfied there was sufficient evidence that Mr H had intentionally committed fraud. The ombudsman also found it disappointing that Metro did not make further attempts to contact Mr H after the initial email went unread.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website