Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Starling Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Starling Bank unfairly registered a negative fraud marker against him after fraudulent funds were received into his account. Mr A claimed he was unknowingly assisting a friend's business colleague with a legitimate currency exchange transaction and was unaware the funds were fraudulent. Starling had received fraud reports from two separate banks regarding payments into Mr A's account. The ombudsman found the circumstances suspicious: Mr A's explanation for why a UK account was needed was unusual, he transferred most of the fraudulent funds out within 40 minutes of receipt, he retained approximately £250 of the funds, and his messages did not corroborate his account of an agreed arrangement. The ombudsman concluded there was sufficient evidence of deliberate complicity to justify the fraud marker registration and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the regulatory standard requiring 'reasonable grounds to believe' that fraud occurred and 'clear, relevant and rigorous' evidence of deliberate complicity. While the two fraud reports alone were insufficient, the ombudsman found Mr A's explanation suspicious: the unusual justification for needing a UK account, the rapid transfer of most funds out within 40 minutes, Mr A's retention of some funds, and the lack of corroborating messages about the agreement all pointed to complicity rather than unwitting involvement. The ombudsman concluded there was sufficient evidence to meet the threshold for registering a marker.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website