Not upheld: unauthorized account opening / alleged fraud complaint against J D Williams & Company Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6364409 of 2026-05-15T00:00:00+00:00. unauthorized account opening / alleged fraud complaint against J D Williams & Company Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6364409 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-15T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | J D Williams & Company Limited |
| Product | credit agreement |
| Claim type | unauthorized account opening / alleged fraud |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint and did not ask J D W to write off the debt or take any further action. |
Summary
Mr B complained that J D W held him liable for two credit agreements opened in his name in 2019 that he claimed he did not authorize and that his ex-partner opened fraudulently. Mr B became aware of the accounts in late 2024 when contacted by a debt collection agency. J D W declined to write off the debt, stating it had insufficient evidence of fraud and requesting additional information including address history. The ombudsman found that J D W acted fairly because the email address on the accounts was correct, J D W had sent Mr B correspondence in 2022 which he responded to, orders were sent to the address he confirmed he was living at, and the pattern of activity (consistent payments, multiple returns, refund queries) was inconsistent with typical fraud. The ombudsman concluded that Mr B had not provided sufficient evidence that the agreements were opened without his knowledge or authority, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that the evidence did not support Mr B's claim that the agreements were opened without his knowledge or authority. The correct email address was used on the accounts, J D W had sent Mr B an email in 2022 and received a response, orders were sent to the address he confirmed he was living at, and the pattern of activity (consistent payments, multiple returns, refund queries) was inconsistent with typical fraud. While the ombudsman acknowledged the possibility of the ex-partner's involvement, there was insufficient evidence to support this theory, particularly given that most orders occurred years after the relationship ended and the volume and nature of activity was atypical of fraudulent accounts. The ombudsman found J D W's requests for additional information (address history and crime reference) to be reasonable and not unreasonable.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| J D Williams & Company Limited, all decisions | 361 | 31% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website