We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Lloyds and Halifax Closing my Accounts?

Options
1235712

Comments

  • Ed-1
    Ed-1 Posts: 3,956 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    JackLadder wrote: »
    Hi everyone, sorry the lack of updates.

    I haven't had a chance to do anything yet - been unwell, but I *should* be able to visit Lloyds and / or phone them tomorrow or Thursday. Will keep you updated. No CIFAS marker on Noddle (do they update in real time on Noddle? Or with the monthly update?)

    Thanks,
    Jack.

    This is what I've picked up about the fraud prevention agencies as a friend of mine has been notified by his banks (again it is Lloyds and Halifax) that they are closing his accounts.

    CIFAS: Only the first two CIFAS categories (i.e. those where you are not being accused of fraud) show up on credit file as a rule of thumb. The rest can only be revealed by submitting a subject access request to CIFAS.

    National Hunter (NH): There seems to be 3 statuses that can be attached to an application: 'Clear', 'Inconsistency' and 'Applicant Refer'. What I'd like to know is who decides what status to give an application - the loading member (i.e. the bank you apply to) or the National Hunter system? When a bank submits application data to National Hunter, does NH automatically run the data against other application data it holds in the applicant's name and it churns out a status/flags any inconsistencies for the bank to look into or can the bank you are applying to see other application data and they decide what status to give the application?

    Synectics Solutions: Don't know much about them but after a bit of digging found they have a product called SIRA that seems to do a similar thing to National Hunter (i.e. scan application data for inconsistencies).

    Of course, banks can decide to close accounts for any reason they want (they all have it in their terms and conditions) and it may be nothing to do with fraud but better to rule it out than not.
  • colsten
    colsten Posts: 17,597 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Seventh Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    grumbler wrote: »
    Define "a lot".

    As to what I mean by you having been here a lot longer than I have: you can look up your and my joining date as well as I can.

    As for "a lot of accounts": that was triggered by you stating that account closures are "often accompanied by an unjustified CIFAS marker." For CIFAS marker to happen "often", we need to compare these happenings with something. I have chosen the number of current accounts as I have a reasonably fair source for how many there are but please feel free to offer another baseline.

    According to the FCA, 97% of adults in Britain have a current account, and there are some 50 millions or so adults in the UK. So we are talking several tens of millions of current accounts, versus the occasional report about account closures on MSE or the BBC or somewhere else. From all I have seen here or on the Beeb, account closures don't happen 'often'. This does by no means imply that I think account closures are always justified. I am just trying to dispel that account closure is something that happens 'often'.

    Anyway, you are trying to evade the actual question I asked. Which was how you know, when (according to you) people will almost never know why their accounts were closed, that mysterious closures are then often accompanied by an unjustified CIFAS marker.

    Please don't try to explain that a subset of "almost never" can occur "often".

    Or just post evidence that closures were often due to CIFAS markers.
  • SevenOfNine
    SevenOfNine Posts: 2,388 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    MABLE wrote: »
    Better to do a round robin using external banks not associated with the Lloyds banking group.

    Thanks, but 'if it aint broke, don't fix it'.

    Had 3 Lloyds bank accounts at one point when interest was better for 7k in each. Bounced required payments round all 3 with no probs for about 3 years or so now, still working just fine as it is with only a slight tweak of dumping 1 Lloyds for a BoS.

    So is 2 TSB & 2 Tesco, involving no other banks but themselves.

    When this thread has more than a single digit of posts with the same story, eg one banking family seemingly dumping a customer for 'internally' bouncing cash when their T&C's don't disallow it, THAT is the time to become concerned.
    Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it.
  • colsten
    colsten Posts: 17,597 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Seventh Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    grumbler wrote: »
    Do you have any other explanation for this if not a CIFAS marker?


    I have nor more evidence that is was due to a CIFAS marker than you have that it was due to a CIFAS marker.

    Can you provide any evidence that the closures were due to CIFAS markers (and that it was the case 'often')? The closure of JackLadder's accounts seems to have nothing to do with CIFAS markers, according to JackLadder.


    Can we just go back to working with facts that we can substantiate rather than elevating speculative personal opinions to facts.
  • ceredigion
    ceredigion Posts: 3,709 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Photogenic
    edited 24 March 2015 at 10:33PM
    colsten wrote: »
    As to what I mean by you having been here a lot longer than I have: you can look up your and my joining date as well as I can.







    May have put two and two together and got five: But I get it to about six months.
  • grumbler
    grumbler Posts: 58,629 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 24 March 2015 at 11:26PM
    colsten wrote: »
    As to what I mean by you having been here a lot longer than I have: you can look up your and my joining date as well as I can.

    As for "a lot of accounts": that was triggered by you stating that account closures are "often accompanied by an unjustified CIFAS marker." For CIFAS marker to happen "often", we need to compare these happenings with something. I have chosen the number of current accounts as I have a reasonably fair source for how many there are but please feel free to offer another baseline.

    According to the FCA, 97% of adults in Britain have a current account, and there are some 50 millions or so adults in the UK. So we are talking several tens of millions of current accounts, versus the occasional report about account closures on MSE or the BBC or somewhere else. From all I have seen here or on the Beeb, account closures don't happen 'often'. This does by no means imply that I think account closures are always justified. I am just trying to dispel that account closure is something that happens 'often'.
    You wasted your time on a pointless "research" that neither proves nor disproves anything.

    What I actually said and what you quoted was: "closures are often accompanied by an unjustified CIFAS marker", not that closures happened often.
    Anyway, you are trying to evade the actual question I asked. Which was how you know, when (according to you) people will almost never know why their accounts were closed, that mysterious closures are then often accompanied by an unjustified CIFAS marker.

    Please don't try to explain that a subset of "almost never" can occur "often".
    :huh:
    Explain what?!
    Are you saying that "a subset of "almost never"" can't "occur "often""? If so, it can and you are wrong.

    I can only repeat that reason of closure is almost never disclosed (unless it's something obvious like a debt not being paid off) and that a noticeable proportion (=often, not always) of such *mysterious* closures results in some sort of nationwide 'blacklisting (I don't insist that it's CIFAS).

    What exactly are you not happy with?
    Or just post evidence that closures were often due to CIFAS markers.
    As I have already said (and you ignored this), I don't insist that it's necessarily a CIFAS market. The point was that mysterious closures often (yes often) result in 'blacklisting'. CIFAS marker is the only explanation I can imagine, but I am no expert. You are welcome to offer other explanation(s).
    colsten wrote: »
    Can you provide any evidence that the closures were due to CIFAS markers (and that it was the case 'often')? The closure of JackLadder's accounts seems to have nothing to do with CIFAS markers, according to JackLadder.
    What's wrong with you?
    What I said was that this closure (1)might (2)result in a marker placed, not that it (1)was (2)caused by a marker.

    And the account hasn't been closed yet, and we don't have anything definite about the marker even if it was placed already.
  • Thrugelmir
    Thrugelmir Posts: 89,546 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    When this thread started I wondered how long it would be before people started 'worrying' about nothing more than SPECULATION as to why OP's accounts were being closed. :T

    Salary goes into Lloyds No. 1 a/c

    At least you have a relationship with your bank.
    The last time I deposited cash was months ago, and I don't think I have ever deposited a cheque with Lloyds or Halifax.

    Bank accounts aren't cost free to maintain.
  • colsten
    colsten Posts: 17,597 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Seventh Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    grumbler wrote: »
    You wasted your time on a pointless "research" that neither proves nor disproves anything.
    I am never wasting my time on anything pointless.

    Which is why I haven't even read past that first sentence in your last response.

    I just hope people will not take your unfounded statements on what is "often" the reason for (rare) account closures as gospel, as you have just about zero evidence for your statements on this matter.
  • Ed-1
    Ed-1 Posts: 3,956 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    grumbler wrote: »
    You wasted your time on a pointless "research" that neither proves nor disproves anything.

    What I actually said and what you quoted was: "closures are often accompanied by an unjustified CIFAS marker", not that closures happened often.
    :huh:
    Explain what?!

    I can only repeat that reason of closure is almost never disclosed (unless it's something obvious like a debt not being paid off) and that a noticeable proportion (=often, not always) of such *mysterious* closures results in some sort of nationwide 'blacklisting (I don't insist that it's CIFAS).

    What exactly are you not happy with?
    As I have already said (and you ignored this), I don't insist that it's necessarily a CIFAS market. The point was that mysterious closures often (yes often) result in 'blacklisting'. CIFAS marker is the only explanation I can imagine, but I am no expert. You are welcome to offer other explanation(s).

    An 'applicant refer' status on an application with National Hunter can have the same blacklisting effect as a CIFAS marker. I assume there's something similar with National SIRA.
  • Thrugelmir wrote: »
    At least you have a relationship with your bank.



    Bank accounts aren't cost free to maintain.

    I haven't deposited cash or cheques, in that time, but I have done Faster Payments. Sorry if it was unclear.

    Jack.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.