Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Nationwide Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Miss L complained that Nationwide unfairly reported her to Cifas fraud prevention database following her October 2024 mortgage application decline. Nationwide concluded that Miss L had provided false employment information, as the employer named on her application and payslip was a dissolved limited company with different directors, while her bank statements and Nationwide's records showed she was paid by different employers. Miss L claimed any discrepancies resulted from broker error and that the named company was an operating name of her own company. The Ombudsman upheld Nationwide's decision, finding that the material discrepancies between the application, payslips, bank statements, Nationwide's records, and Companies House records provided clear, relevant and rigorous evidence meeting the Cifas threshold for reasonable suspicion of false information, and that Nationwide was entitled to rely on documents provided by the broker.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman applied the Cifas standard requiring clear, relevant and rigorous evidence giving rise to reasonable suspicion of fraud. The evidence showed material discrepancies: the employer on the application and payslip was a dissolved limited company with different directors, Miss L's bank statements showed payment from a different company, Nationwide's records showed yet another employer, and her HMRC records did not support the stated employment. Miss L's explanation that the named company was an operating name of her own company was contradicted by Companies House records showing it was a separate legal entity. These discrepancies provided reasonable grounds to suspect false information was submitted, meeting the threshold for a Cifas marker. The Ombudsman noted that Nationwide was not required to prove fraud beyond reasonable doubt, only reasonable suspicion, and that Nationwide was entitled to rely on documents provided by the broker.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website