Blamed for bank fraud - HELP !

gunsandbanjos

grumbler wrote: »

"Lot of software" - this does inspire confidence. Why do we not replace the judges by computers then?



(NOT)
Come on... Applications get routinely declined by computers because of the mark, and human beings are often busy or lazy it intervene.

I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to auto decline based on a cifas mark, I think there has to be a human interaction.

grumbler

gunsandbanjos wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to auto decline based on a cifas mark, I think there has to be a human interaction.

On paper - maybe.
However, as you are allowed to decline without any reasons and are allowed not to disclose the reason(s), then in fact you are allowed pretty much everything.

Sofail

Bmth100 wrote: »

You might not have a mark. "Solid evidence" might be the wrong phrase to have used. I have a lot of software at my disposal; I've never had a fraudulent application get past me, and 99% of the time, I can identify the responsible party. In this case, I'll report it to cifas, to make sure this person is unlikely to get credit elsewhere.

I see credit as a privilidge. Once you've seen a teenage chav trying to rip off their vulnerable elders as often as I have, you would be inclined to want to teach them a lesson and make sure other people are protected from them.

But that doesn't mean the Police will investigate. It's on the victim of fraud to report it to them (I work in application fraud, company not at a loss, so no police report).

Having a CIFAS market is no guarantee you'll be declined for credit. We're not allowed to base our decision to lend on a CIFAS result alone. But you can be sure that when our SLAs / stats come into play, we'd see somebody in this position as a higher risk and so we would be less inclined to want to lend.

Few questions:

1. In this scenario has the bank suffered a loss?
It has not been the banks money that has been affected here but rather customers of other banks personal money - would BoS have suffered any loss or potential loss?

2. How much information gets take into account with CIFAS markers - Will CIFAS/Banks/future assessors look into my clean record other than this potential marker, or my background?

3. What constitutes a sufficient burden of proof for a CIFAS marker. If you were to make one what elements would need to be present.

4. If I make a Police report will it make any difference to the bank actually looking into seeing what has really happened or is the Police likely to just side with banks fraud team without investigation?
I ask as it seems that via CIFAS Banks really are judge and jury on these matters.


P.s Just received a letter from my credit card (different bank - only non BoS acc) Who have just said they are increasing my credit limit from 400 to 800.. Does this not show my SLA/Stats (whatever they refer too) are good enough to get at least a basic bank account? So If I am declined it would be down to a marker if there is one placed?

Sofail

gunsandbanjos wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to auto decline based on a cifas mark, I think there has to be a human interaction.

This human interaction is most likely a person sitting in front of the computer saying:
"Computer says no."

Bantex_2

What does th CIFAS marker say?

Sofail

Bantex wrote: »

What does th CIFAS marker say?

I don't know if they have or will apply for one yet; and if they do which cat it would be - however it seems in these situations they are applied for.

Looking into the CIFAS criteria I sense that I shouldn't even be worried as I haven't done anything wrong and so there can be no proof to satisfy the burden of proof required.

However, speaking to BoS it seems to me they do not care and are willing and able to put forward the CIFAS based on assumptions - this is what worries me.

meer53

I see lending approved every day where CIFAS markers are present. Just because there is a CIFAS marker present doesn't mean you'll automatically be declined. All applications with these markers are referred for a manual decision to be made where i work. It all depends on why the marker was applied.

Archi_Bald

Sofail, you are spending a lot of time discussing things on this forum. If I were you, I would spend that time writing to the CEO of Lloyds, reporting the fraud to the Police, and making sure BOS know I have done so.

eskbanker

callum9999 wrote: »

You know full well what the reason was - you merely don't agree with it.

I have no problem with differences of opinion, although that particular discussion ran its course and certainly doesn't warrant reheating on this thread.

My point here was simply about the rank hypocrisy of an aggressor complaining of aggression, glass houses and stones come to mind!

Apologies to OP for the brief digression....

Sofail

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Sofail, you are spending a lot of time discussing things on this forum. If I were you, I would spend that time writing to the CEO of Lloyds, reporting the fraud to the Police, and making sure BOS know I have done so.

Was going through the complaints procedure before this post now given final response.
Will speak to MP and sent complaint to ombudsman now.

Also something which has worried me from my most recent conversation with BoS:
There was a payment amounting to approx 2700 but when recovered only around 2300 was taken. Explanation given is to take more would have caused me to go into overdraft - understandable.
I then asked how I could pay make the difference between what was paid in and taken out and was told essentially that I could now and the account would just close as it.

The bank is essentially forcing me to take fraudulent money which does not belong to me - Any ideas whats about to hit me next from BoS?

P.s Complains handler stated fraud dept are unwilling to give a position on CIFAS marker likelihood at the moment as investigation still on going.

From bad to worse