Not upheld: fraud marker registration / misuse of facility complaint against Starling Bank

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that Starling Bank unfairly loaded a negative fraud marker against his name after he received a £460 fraudulent payment into his account. Mr H claimed the funds were from a friend to help with insurance and personal expenses, but his explanations were inconsistent and changed multiple times. When asked for evidence, Mr H could not provide documentation of insurance payments, message screenshots, or proof of repayment, and bank statements showed the funds were transferred to a cryptocurrency exchange. The ombudsman found that Starling acted fairly in registering the marker, as Mr H's inconsistent account and lack of supporting evidence demonstrated deliberate complicity in receiving the fraudulent funds, meeting the required standard of proof for such markers.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

To register a fraud marker, Starling must show reasonable grounds to believe fraudulent funds entered the account and strong evidence of deliberate complicity by the account holder. The ombudsman found that while the third-party fraud report alone was insufficient, Mr H's multiple inconsistent explanations, inability to provide supporting evidence (insurance documentation, message screenshots), and the fact that funds were transferred to a cryptocurrency exchange rather than used for stated purposes, demonstrated deliberate complicity. The ombudsman was not persuaded by Mr H's account and concluded Starling acted fairly in registering the marker.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website