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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that Revolut unfairly registered a CIFAS marker against him, claiming he was legitimately sourcing designer jackets for clients who had sent him money. Revolut recorded the marker for mis-use of facility based on concerns about funds passing through his account. The ombudsman found that while Mr S provided social media screenshots discussing jacket sourcing, the evidence was insufficient because the incoming funds were withdrawn in cash almost immediately (sometimes in the middle of the night), there was no supporting evidence of supplier communications or onward transactions, and the account activity pattern was inconsistent with the stated purpose. The ombudsman upheld Revolut's decision, finding that the totality of circumstances provided reasonable grounds to believe fraud or financial crime had been attempted, meeting the four pillars burden of proof required by the National Fraud Database Handbook.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the four pillars burden of proof required by the National Fraud Database Handbook. While acknowledging that absence of evidence alone is insufficient, the ombudsman found that the totality of circumstances - including the pattern of immediate cash withdrawals, lack of supporting documentation, insufficient detail in social media messages, and absence of evidence of legitimate supplier transactions - collectively met the threshold of 'reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime has been committed or attempted'. The account activity pattern was inconsistent with Mr S's stated purpose of sourcing jackets.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website