Partially upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr O complained that Revolut lodged a fraud-related CIFAS marker on his account in January 2025 after receiving a fraud notification from another bank, without asking him to explain the transaction. Revolut subsequently closed his account and the marker remained for nine months, during which two banks closed his accounts. In October 2025, Revolut accepted Mr O's evidence that he had legitimately purchased cryptocurrency and provided a service, and agreed to remove the marker. The ombudsman found Revolut had breached CIFAS requirements and their own guidelines by not giving Mr O an opportunity to explain before lodging the marker. While Mr O sought £2,500-£3,000 compensation, the ombudsman awarded £250, finding this appropriate for the inconvenience caused by the nine-month marker period, though Mr O's broader claims of impact were not sufficiently substantiated.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Revolut failed to follow CIFAS requirements and their own internal guidelines by lodging a fraud marker without reasonable grounds or clear evidence, and without giving Mr O an opportunity to explain. Revolut's own acceptance of Mr O's evidence in October confirmed the marker was inappropriate. However, Mr O had alternative payment arrangements available and the causal link between the marker and his claimed need to leave the country was not established. The nine-month period during which the marker remained on his record caused genuine inconvenience in accessing credit, justifying compensation of £250, which is in line with FOS standard awards for such cases.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website