Not upheld: fraud marker filing, account closure, and fund retention following disputed chargeback claims complaint against Nationwide Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that Nationwide Building Society unfairly recorded a fraud marker against him at Cifas, closed his account, and retained £11,800 of his funds. Mr S claimed he was the victim of fraud when making chargeback claims for household items that were never delivered, and that Visa had upheld all his claims and approved refunds. However, Nationwide's investigation revealed that payments to company C had been occurring since 2021 (not 2025), C was a trading platform where Mr S held an account with deposits and trading activity, and Mr S had made similar false chargeback claims against other trading platforms. The ombudsman found material inconsistencies in Mr S's explanations and determined that the weight of evidence supported Nationwide's conclusion that Mr S had made false chargeback claims with intent to gain, justifying the fraud marker, account closure, and fund retention.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Nationwide had reasonable grounds and sufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof for loading the Cifas marker. The key evidence was: (1) payments to C began in 2021, not 2025, making it inconceivable that Mr S would not have contacted Nationwide if he genuinely did not recognize them; (2) C provided technical evidence that Mr S held a legitimate trading account with deposits, withdrawals, and trading activity; (3) material inconsistencies between Mr S's initial claim of an investment scam and his later claim about household items, which could not be explained by confusion given his clarity in calls with Nationwide; (4) the pattern of similar false chargeback claims against other trading platforms; (5) receipt of approximately £19,000 from C, which aligned with a trading account rather than non-delivery of household items. The ombudsman found Mr S's version of events not credible and the weight of evidence in Nationwide's possession to be robust. The call records Mr S cited regarding non-delivery were insufficient to outweigh the totality of evidence. Making a chargeback claim to secure a refund on a valid transaction constitutes intent to gain, which is fraudulent.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website