Bank of Scotland plc · DRN-5964360

The complaint Mr O complains that Bank of Scotland plc, trading as Halifax, loaded an adverse fraud marker against his name. What happened As the circumstances of this complaint are well-known to both parties, I have summarised them briefly below. Mr O held an account with Halifax. In May 2025, Halifax received two reports regarding two payments that had been made into Mr O’s account alleging fraudulent conduct. Halifax reviewed Mr O’s account and deemed him a risk to the bank. It therefore closed the account and loaded an adverse fraud marker against his name on the Cifas database. Mr O was unhappy with this, as he claimed to have received the funds for legitimate purposes. He complained to Halifax, but it decided not to reverse its decision to load the fraud marker. Mr O referred his complaint to our service for an independent review. But after considering the evidence provided by both parties, our Investigator concluded that Halifax was fair in loading the marker as it had demonstrated the relevant burden of proof had been met. Mr O disagreed with that assessment, so the matter has now been passed to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. One of the relevant considerations here is set out by Cifas: the fraud marker database controller. In its Handbook—which members must adhere to when loading markers—it sets out the burden of proof the member must meet. The relevant standards regarding this complaint are: 1. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime has been committed or attempted. 2. That the evidence must be clear, relevant and rigorous. My interpretation of these standards is that a member cannot simply load a marker against an individual based on mere suspicion. It must be able to meet a higher bar; in that a customer was likely a witting participant in the alleged conduct. This has been reinforced by Cifas’ Money Mule Guidance, which it released to its members in March 2020. Having considered these standards, I’m satisfied that Halifax has been able to demonstrate the first of the above two standards has been met. While I am unable to disclose the exact details of the reports Halifax received, it is clear these were credible allegations of fraud

-- 1 of 3 --

made by two separate individuals in unrelated circumstances. Mr O was provided an opportunity by Halifax to explain the first payment reported as fraudulent, which he claimed was from a previous co-tenant—who I will refer to as ‘R’—in payment for a bike he had left at the property. Mr O provided a full copy of the messages exchanged with R as evidence, but having reviewed this, I’m not persuaded a link between the payment and Mr O’s testimony can sufficiently be established. The payment that entered Mr O’s account did so on 30 April 2025. However, looking at the date stamp of the messages between Mr O and R, it would appear they continued discussing reimbursement of the bike after this date, with Mr O telling R in June 2025 that he would send his account details so that the money could be sent. R then agrees to send the money in three monthly instalments. R then changes his mind and tells Mr O he is not paying for the bike as it was stolen. This conversation regarding the reimbursement for the bike therefore post-dates the payment that was made to the account. As well as this, I have noted that the value of the bike Mr O referred to in the chats is not the same as the amount received, and the name of the person he was speaking with does not match the name of the account the money was sent from. I can also see that at no point in the chats provided did R say they had sold the bike or ask Mr O for his banking information to make payment for that sale. To the contrary, they seem to dispute having to reimburse Mr O for a bike that was stolen, as it was not their responsibility. Taking all of this into account, I’m not persuaded that Mr O has been able to evidence a legitimate explanation for receiving the funds. And the evidence provided does bring into question the reliability of Mr O’s submissions. For these reasons, I find that Halifax did hold sufficient evidence to satisfy the burden of proof required by Cifas to load an adverse fraud marker against Mr O’s name. I therefore won’t be asking Halifax to remove it. I understand that there was a further payment that was made to Mr O’s account that was reported as fraud. As I have already found that there is sufficient information based on the first payment to have loaded a marker, I see little use in providing detailed findings regarding the second payment reported. However, for the avoidance of doubt I also find that a marker would have been fair to place regarding this payment. A summary of my reasons is as follows: • The refence provided on the payment was “Coldplay tickets’, which is not in line with the purpose of the payment Mr O was expecting. He did not seem to question this. • Mr O has provided messages between him and an ‘exchange’ claiming that he was providing money exchange services on their behalf. However, the messages do not seem to evidence the specific payment being referred to here. • Mr O has suggested that he was providing unregulated money remittance services which, if true, is not permitted by law. Taking into account all the evidence available, I’m satisfied that Halifax has fairly met the evidential threshold for loading Mr O to the Cifas database. My final decision For the reasons I have given above, I don’t uphold this complaint.

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr O to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Stephen Westlake Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --