Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H received a fraudulent transfer into his Revolut account in April 2025 and initially explained it as payment for a service. When Revolut requested supporting evidence, Mr H provided insufficient documentation. In October 2025, when challenging the resulting Cifas fraud marker, Mr H changed his explanation to state the payment was from a poker game. The ombudsman found this variation in explanations not credible, particularly given that Revolut had provided the transaction details and Mr H had indicated direct involvement in April. Despite Mr H's claims of receiving the funds on behalf of his partner and that the marker was affecting his ability to obtain services, the ombudsman determined Revolut acted fairly in filing the marker and declined to require its removal.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr H's changing explanations between April and October 2025 (from a service to a poker game) were not credible, particularly given that Revolut had provided the payment date, amount, and sender's name. The ombudsman noted that Mr H used the word 'us' in his April interaction, indicating direct involvement, and that he failed to provide satisfactory supporting evidence despite ample opportunity. The marked differences in responses and lack of tangible evidence pointed to Mr H knowing more than he was willing to disclose, suggesting complicity in the underlying activity. The ombudsman was satisfied that Revolut's evidence was clear, relevant, and rigorous enough to justify filing the Cifas marker, and noted that Cifas itself had confirmed the marker was recorded correctly.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website