Santander Consumer (UK) Plc · DRN-6197006

The complaint Mr H complains that Santander Consumer (UK) Plc trading as Santander Consumer Finance (“SCF”) loaded a Cifas fraud marker against his name. What happened As both parties are familiar with the circumstances of this complaint, I’ve summarised them briefly below. SCF supplied Mr H with a used vehicle on a conditional sale agreement in August 2019. The cash price of the vehicle was around £33,800. The agreement required payments of around £470 for 48 months and a final optional payment of £16,686. Mr H sold the car in April 2022, and although he initially made payments towards the agreement, he didn’t settle the proceeds of the sale on the agreement or let SCF know that he had sold the car. He entered into discussion about this with SCF in January 2023. Mr H later found out that SCF had reported a Cifas fraud marker against his name, he submitted a subject access request to Cifas in March 2025, which set out that a category five marker for evasion of payment had been recorded. Mr H complained to SCF in September 2025. SCF declined to remove the Cifas marker stating that as he had sold the car and not settled the agreement the marker was correct, and it issued a final response on this basis in November 2025. Mr H referred his complaint about the Cifas marker to the Financial Ombudsman. An investigator here considered the complaint. She set out a timeline of events and explained that SCF had shown that Mr H had received funds from the sale of the car but had not settled the agreement, and the car had to be recovered from the new registered keeper. Mr H disagreed. In summary he said: • Selling a car subject to a conditional sale agreement may be a breach of contract but it doesn’t constitute fraud or dishonest conduct. • He did not obtain the car by deception or provide false information to obtain credit, and he did not attempt to conceal his identity. He informed SCF that the car had been sold and the car was ultimately recovered by it. There was no permanent deprivation. • Continuing to make payments was inconsistent with an intention to permanently deprive the lender of the asset or to act dishonestly. A person committing fraud would normally disengage and cease payments. His actions demonstrated recognition of the agreement and an attempt to manage his financial obligations during financial hardship. • SCF ultimately repossessed the car and pursued the balance through civil debt process, which is the normal remedy for a breached finance agreement. He was declared bankrupt in 2025, and this had a substantial and ongoing financial impact on him.

-- 1 of 3 --

• Applying a Cifas marker in addition to this is disproportionate and goes beyond the purpose of Cifas. The evidence showed financial difficulties and poor decision making, not dishonest intent or a scheme to obtain gain. He did not believe the threshold required for a Cifas filing had been met. The complaint has been passed to me to make a decision. 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. When considering what is, in my opinion, fair and reasonable, I take into account relevant law and regulations; regulator’s rules including the Consumer Duty, guidance, and standards; codes of practice; and what I believe to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. I’ve read and considered everything both parties said, but I’ve summarised the key points here. If I don’t comment on a specific point, it isn’t because I haven’t considered it, but because I don’t think I need to comment in order to reach what I think is the right outcome. This is not intended as a discourtesy but reflects the informal nature of this service in resolving disputes. Mr H has explained a series of events which has led to difficult circumstances for him over a number of years, and this meant that he was vulnerable. I’m very sorry to hear that. Where the evidence is incomplete, inconclusive, or contradictory (as some of it is here), I reach my decision on the balance of probabilities – in other words, what I consider is most likely to have happened in light of the available evidence and the wider circumstances. Cifas members, such as SCF, must adhere to the standards set out by Cifas in its National Fraud Database Handbook. In order for a member to satisfy itself that an adverse loading is warranted in the circumstances, Cifas requires that its members meet certain standards of proof. These include: • That there are reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime has been committed or attempted. • That the evidence must be clear, relevant, and rigorous. This means that the member cannot load a marker based on mere suspicion. It must have clear and robust evidence to support that a financial crime has been committed or attempted, and that the person it intends to load the marker against had witting involvement in this act. It does not however need to go as far as proving this beyond all reasonable doubt. In considering this complaint my role isn’t to prove that Mr H was guilty of a fraud or financial crime. But rather to look at whether SCF acted fairly and proportionately in reporting the marker. Mr H made enquiries directly with Cifas and it provided a summary of the information that it held. It referred to the Cifas filing as “asset conversion” which it defined as “ the conversion (disposal or sale) of goods which are the subject of a hire purchase, conditional sale, contract hire, leasing or rental agreement where the hirer or purchaser under such an

-- 2 of 3 --

agreement is not innocent and acted with intent to deprive the owner of the goods”. The marker was reported in May 2023. Our investigator set out a timeline of events which Mr H doesn’t appear to have disagreed with. Mr H told SCF that he sold the car in April 2022. He did continue making some further payments under the agreement, but he didn’t settle the agreement in full with the proceeds that he received from the sale. SCF has shown that his explanations about what happened were inconsistent, it had seen evidence that Mr H had received £25,000 for the sale of the car and he had changed his story about who the car had been sold to and refused to settle the agreement. It has also shown that it offered to discuss a payment arrangement with Mr H which is the usual course of action if someone is in financial difficulties. I can also see that SCF gave Mr H time and several opportunities to settle the agreement, enter into a payment arrangement or to surrender the car before it took steps to report the marker in May 2023. After the marker was reported the car was ultimately recovered by repossession from the new registered keeper and sold at a loss to the parties involved. I’m not persuaded that what happened is as simple as saying that not settling the funds he received on the agreement, was because of financial difficulties. Mr H had deprived SCF of the goods and it had been shown that he’d benefited from payment for the car from a third party, he hadn’t been forthcoming about the location of the car or cooperated in engaging its return. I’m satisfied that SCF has shown that it had sufficient information to have more than a mere suspicion or concern that he had evaded making payment and intentionally deprived the owner of the goods. And I think its reporting is in line with the definition of evasion of payment provided by Cifas. Looking at the level of evidence retained by SCF I think that it retained sufficient evidence to show that there were reasonable grounds to believe that fraud or a financial crime had been committed. I can appreciate that Mr H doesn’t agree but having considered this evidence, I’m persuaded SCF has demonstrated it met the bar to load a marker against Mr H’s name. It follows that I won’t be requiring SCF to remove the marker now. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Caroline Kirby Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --