Admiral Financial Services Limited · DRN-6174728

The complaint Mrs M complains Admiral Financial Services Limited trading as Admiral Money (Admiral) has held her liable for a loan that she says she did not agree to. What happened Mrs M says she fell victim to a scam after expressing an interest in a cryptocurrency investment opportunity. She says she originally invested £250 using her credit card in June 2024 and was then contacted by someone who she believed was a trader. She says she was asked to download the Any Desk app on her phone which allowed the so-called trader access to her device. Mrs M says she didn’t knowingly apply for a loan with Admiral and only realised something was wrong when she saw a repayment towards a loan leave her bank account. Mrs M says she contacted her main bank account provider – where the loan funds had been deposited – who started an investigation into the matter. She says it referred her to Action Fraud and told her to contact Admiral so that it may assist her. On raising concerns, Admiral held Mrs M liable for the loan. Admiral explained the application for £25,000 was made online on 13 September 2024. The reason for the loan was stated as home improvements, and the funds were paid into Mrs M’s bank account some days later - on 18 September 2024 – after confirmation emails were sent to her genuine email address and a letter was also sent to Mrs M’s genuine home address to confirm the loan agreement - so putting her on notice. Mrs M has brought her complaint against Admiral to this service along with other complaints relating to loan applications made with other providers, that she also says she had no knowledge of. Mrs M states that all the applications were part of the same scam and that the fraudster used her identification – passport and driving licence to precure the loan, and confirms she knew the loans had been paid into her account. Our investigator considered Mrs M’s complaint against Admiral but did not uphold it. She was of the view that Mrs M had an awareness of the loan application. As Mrs M remained unhappy with the outcome, she asked that an ombudsman consider her complaint. 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. Having done so, I’ve reached the same outcome as our investigator for broadly the same reasons, in that it is reasonable for Admiral to pursue Mrs M for the loan.

-- 1 of 4 --

I realise this will be upsetting for Mrs M to hear. I acknowledge Mrs M has been through a very difficult experience and that it has been very distressing for her to realise she has been a victim to an elaborate scam and she has my sympathy. I also appreciate this matter has added to an already difficult time. I hope she is getting the support she needs. But it’s worth keeping in mind that it’s ultimately the scammers who are primarily responsible for the loss Mrs M has experienced. And in this case, I can only consider what Mrs M and Admiral are responsible for. On considering this matter, my focus has been on the actions of Admiral and whether it acted reasonably towards Mrs M. In doing so, I’ve carefully reviewed all the evidence presented, to get an understanding of what happened so I can understand the sequence of events fully. I've also considered Mrs M’s very detailed submissions and I’m very aware that I’ve summarised this complaint in far less detail than Mrs M has. But I’d like to assure Mrs M, I’ve focussed on what I think are the key issues here. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it. I haven’t. I’m satisfied I don’t need to comment on every individual argument to be able to reach what I think is the right outcome. Our rules allow me to do this. Firstly, existing consumer credit legislation states that a customer can’t be held liable for a loan if it was taken out by an unauthorised party. So, what I must consider here is whether Mrs M applied for the loan with Admiral herself or authorised someone else to do so on her behalf. Mrs M says she downloaded remote access software – AnyDesk - to her phone on the instruction of the scammer. But it seems she did not realise it was for the purpose of making loan applications in her name. Mrs M mentions she uploaded her ID based on instructions she was given by the scammer but was under the impression it was being used to open an account in her name. I fully accept Mrs M didn’t intend to be part of a scam. But these actions meant the scammer was able to apply for the loan using her genuine details. On reviewing what Admiral has evidenced, along with other evidence provided on the other complaints Mrs M has brought to this service, it seems like there is some inconsistency with her version of events. I note Mrs M provided screenshots of WhatsApp messages between herself and the scammers - which were presented as evidence – that allude to Mrs M herself transferring the loan money away once it had been deposited into her bank account, and it also suggests she had an awareness of the direct debit set up to repay the loan with Admiral (taken out in her name) from the point of the application being made. So, I’m persuaded the messages demonstrate that Mrs M was more involved in what happened then she has disclosed. This seems to contradict what Mrs M has said about the loan being applied for without her knowledge or consent and then transferred into her bank account. It suggests to me that she was likely aware the loan had been applied for and approved in her name and then deposited into her account. Admiral has provided evidence to show the actions it took to ensure Mrs M agreed with the conditions of the loan. In particular, I can see that as part of the loan application process it sent emails to Mrs M to share its terms and conditions, and a letter was also sent to her home address, outlining the loan agreement again for her reference. Following this, the funds were released to her account after a few days, so allowing Mrs M further time to review and change her mind if necessary. I appreciate that Mrs M states her emails were intercepted by the scammer. But given that Admiral sent the letter to Mrs M’s genuine address, it seems more likely than not that Mrs M would have received it, and I haven’t seen anything to suggest any compromise. But it

-- 2 of 4 --

seems that no concerns were raised by Mrs M. Even despite her having a further opportunity to review the decision to take a loan and the terms and conditions she was agreeing to. On that basis, I’m persuaded that Mrs M was aware of the loan with Admiral being applied for in her name using her personal information prior to it being paid into her account. Mrs M mentions she should not be held liable for the loan, in the sense that she did not agree to any loan agreement with Admiral. With the benefit of hindsight and realising that she’s been the victim of an elaborate scam, I can understand why Mrs M thinks that. But the issue here is that at the time of the application, as far as Admiral was concerned, it was a legitimate application where the loan funds were released to an existing account in her name, once it had also sent a letter to Mrs M’s genuine address, and satisfying Admiral’s loan application requirements and Admiral have presented information to that effect. Based on what I have seen, I also can’t see that Admiral had any reason to think it wasn’t Mrs M applying for this loan. I appreciate that Mrs M says she had recently been made redundant and so her income details were not accurate. But her correct personal details were provided, the funds were to be paid to her genuine bank account, a direct debit mandate was set up, and the application passed all the checks. So, I’m not persuaded there was cause for Admiral to suspect anything untoward. Even if I were to accept that Mrs M might not have physically submitted the loan application herself, according to the evidence presented, I remain satisfied she enabled access to her personal information so allowing someone to do so on her behalf. So, it would be fair and reasonable for Admiral to hold her responsible as she had the opportunity to stop and question the loan application further and also to stop it being spent. And it’s clear that instead she allowed the transfer of the loan funds once they were received into her account into the investment – albeit I appreciate she later realised it wasn’t a legitimate investment. Admiral has presented information detailing its loan process and the checks that were conducted prior to the loan being agreed - including credit referencing agency data, income and affordability checks - and I can see the details used to apply for the loan were accurate for Mrs M. On considering the application of the loan and given Mrs M’s circumstances, having reviewed the information presented by Admiral I am satisfied that the checks conducted were reasonable and proportionate. And given everything presented, I think Admiral acted in good faith, based on the information it was given when approving the application. So, as I can’t fairly hold Admiral responsible, I can’t reasonably tell them to write off the loan in these circumstances. Although, I understand it has agreed to remove the interest on the loan as a gesture of goodwill. Finally, I appreciate what Mrs M has mentioned about another loan provider having reimbursed her for a loan taken out in her name as part of this scam and I am glad to hear Mrs M has achieved some resolutions to her concerns. But I want to clarify that this does not influence my decision here. All cases are considered independently by this service and are based on their own merits and require consideration of all the facts presented by all parties involved. Here I have considered what I think is fair and reasonable based on all the evidence presented by Admiral and Mrs M that is specific to these circumstances. I am aware this has been a very difficult time for Mrs M and that the impact of the scam has been significant, and I’d like to assure her I haven’t taken this decision lightly. But taking everything into account, as I believe it’s most likely Mrs M had an awareness of the loan application and allowed it to proceed, I can’t fairly say Admiral has acted unreasonably in holding her responsible for repaying it.

-- 3 of 4 --

Admiral however must be mindful of the position Mrs M finds herself in. I would expect it to be sympathetic to her and give consideration to her circumstances and support her with establishing a plan which will help her manage and meet her financial obligations. My final decision My final decision is I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs M to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Sukhdeep Judge Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --