Not upheld: Account closure without notice complaint against Starling Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P complained that Starling Bank improperly lodged a CIFAS fraud marker on his account after he received £1,192.50 in three payments from a scam victim in March 2023. When questioned by Starling in May 2023, Mr P claimed the money was wages from stand-in work but could not provide evidence. Starling closed his account and lodged the marker. The ombudsman found that Starling had sufficient evidence under CIFAS rules to lodge the marker, including the fraud report, Mr P's unsubstantiated explanation, and evidence that he spent the funds immediately, concluding Mr P knew the money was fraudulent. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the CIFAS marker requirements, which mandate reasonable grounds to believe fraud was committed, clear and rigorous evidence, and opportunity for the account holder to explain. The ombudsman found that Starling had sufficient evidence: a fraud report from another bank, an unsubstantiated explanation from Mr P, and evidence that Mr P spent the funds immediately. The ombudsman concluded that Mr P was in receipt of fraudulent funds, made use of them, and knew they were fraudulent, particularly because someone would not have raised a fraud report if Mr P was the valid recipient.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website