Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against MBNA Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R complained that MBNA pursued him for a £10,000 loan he claimed he did not apply for, alleging that an old friend fraudulently accessed his device and applied for the loan without his knowledge. Mr R sought to have the loan written off and any payments refunded. MBNA maintained it completed necessary checks and that Mr R benefited from the funds, with regular payments made until July 2023. The ombudsman found that while a different phone number and email were used on the application, Mr R's subsequent conduct—including making regular monthly payments, conducting online banking transactions, transferring funds to third parties, and using loan proceeds—demonstrated his awareness of the loan. The complaint was not upheld, and the ombudsman concluded MBNA reasonably held Mr R liable for the debt.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities standard due to incomplete and contradictory evidence. While a different phone number and email were used on the application, the ombudsman found that Mr R's subsequent conduct demonstrated awareness of the loan: he made regular monthly payments, conducted online banking transactions, transferred funds to a third party, used loan proceeds to pay his credit card, and had capacity to report fraud (as evidenced by reporting his card missing). The ombudsman was not persuaded by Mr R's testimony given the contradiction between his claim of no knowledge and his earlier statement that he had discussed obtaining money with his friend.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website