Upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Capital One (Europe) plc

Decision detail

Summary

Miss H complained that Capital One unfairly loaded a CIFAS marker against her without providing meaningful information or evidence. Capital One had registered the marker based on a chargeback from a third-party bank relating to fraudulent funds received into Miss H's account. The ombudsman found that while the chargeback raised legitimate concern, Capital One failed to demonstrate that Miss H was deliberately complicit in the fraud. Analysis of Miss H's account conduct showed she likely remained unaware of the payment, as she continued normal operations and did not benefit from the funds. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered Capital One to remove the CIFAS marker immediately.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Under the Cifas National Fraud Database Handbook, Capital One must have clear, relevant and rigorous evidence meeting the 'four pillars' burden of proof to register a marker. While the chargeback raised legitimate concern, Capital One failed to demonstrate that Miss H was deliberately complicit in the fraud. The evidence showed Miss H was likely unaware of the payment, as she continued normal account operations, paid her minimum payment despite the incoming funds, and did not spend or benefit from the money. Without evidence of deliberate dishonesty or complicity, the marker was unfairly applied.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website