Not upheld: application fraud marker loading - non-disclosure of previous addresses complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that NatWest unfairly loaded a negative fraud marker against him after declining his current account application. The marker alleged application fraud based on Mr A's failure to disclose previous addresses. Investigation revealed Mr A's credit file contained at least four addresses over six years, but he disclosed only one address in his application and selected 'N/A' for previous addresses. Notably, one undisclosed address (Address B) was linked to a credit card that defaulted in January 2024, just months before his NatWest application in September 2025. Although Mr A claimed he omitted Address B because he lived there briefly, the ombudsman found the omission was likely intentional to conceal negative credit information. The ombudsman upheld NatWest's decision to load the fraud marker, finding they had clear and rigorous evidence of intentional non-disclosure.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the standard that NatWest must have clear, relevant and rigorous evidence that fraud or financial crime was committed or attempted, and that Mr A was complicit. The ombudsman found that while Mr A claimed he omitted Address B because he lived there briefly and didn't think it relevant, the application form explicitly asked for previous addresses. The ombudsman concluded it was more likely than not that the omission was intentional, particularly given that the account at that address had defaulted, and that Mr A intended to avoid disclosure of negative credit information. Therefore, NatWest acted fairly in loading the fraud marker.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website