Cifas advice

eskbanker

grumbler wrote: »

If what the OP says is true, then the bank obviously published something that is false=libellous.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree - just because a bank notified CIFAS of a transaction satisfying its criteria of fraud-related suspicion doesn't mean that this was either published or false.

antrobus

jonny9999 wrote: »

...I have explained the situation to the bank and they have advised it will be hard to prove this and wont remove the data against me....

The bank believe you were a party to the fraud.

grumbler wrote: »

Is it possible to sue the bank for libel via the Small Claims Court?

Defamation cases go to the High Court.

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Have you made a formal complaint to the bank, and/or have they told you you have the right to go to the Financial Ombudsman Service? If not, make a formal complaint; if yes, go to FOS. There isn't much more advice that people here can meaningfully give you, because CIFAS records are more or less entirely at the discretion of the bank....

As far as I'm aware, if you can't persuade the bank to change their mind you take it to FOS.

Here is one FOS decision (127/6)

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/127/127-vulnerable-consumers.html

The complainant got the CIFAS marker removed plus £150. Since the FOS can award compensation, I'd take that option rather than going to the High Court.

grumbler

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Can you provide any example of this argument ever succeeding ever, either in court or with FOS?

What argument?
Let's see first what was reported to CIFAS.

eskbanker wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, I disagree - just because a bank notified CIFAS of a transaction satisfying its criteria of fraud-related suspicion doesn't mean that this was either published or false.

The key word is 'suspicion'.
I can be wrong, but I don't remember this word appearing in CIFAS categories.

JuicyJesus

grumbler wrote: »

What argument?

That CIFAS loadings count as libel.

Let's see first what was reported to CIFAS.
The key word is 'suspicion'.
I can be wrong, but I don't remember this word appearing in CIFAS categories.

The OP received funds into their account that the bank was told - by another bank, after that bank had performed a smell test - did not belong to them and were stolen. That's fairly cut and dried, and I can quite confidently state also that banks do not raise interbank fraud claims willy nilly. The loading for that would be "misuse of facility".

I too am a little bit confused as to why the OP isn't bothered that their car's gone walkies either. But they've not been back.

grumbler

JuicyJesus wrote: »

That CIFAS loadings count as libel.

Well, any public 'loading' counts. Why CIFAS is special, especially as the consequences of 'loading' to CIFAS can be far more serious compared to other 'loadings'?

The OP received funds into their account that the bank was told - by another bank, after that bank had performed a smell test - did not belong to them and were stolen.

Since when receiving money is an offence? The entire economy is based on this and it's impossible for 'receivers' to check the legitimacy of the funds.
Nobody is deemed to be a counterfeiter for paying by a fake note. This may raise suspicious and be a starting point for a proper criminal investigation, but that's it.

That's fairly cut and dried, and I can quite confidently state also that banks do not raise interbank fraud claims willy nilly. The loading for that would be "misuse of facility".

How was it 'misused'? The accounts exist for sending and receiving money, and it wasn't a business transaction, although this is irrelevant in this case.

I too am a little bit confused as to why the OP isn't bothered that their car's gone walkies either. But they've not been back.

We don't know yet whether the funds were confiscated. And it's not uncommon to sell a car for just a few hundred pounds. Not a big loss compared to other consequences.

JuicyJesus

grumbler wrote: »

Since when receiving money is an offence? The entire economy is based on this and it's impossible for 'receivers' to check the legitimacy of the funds.

Receiving stolen money is an offence.

Nobody is deemed to be a counterfeiter for paying by a fake note.

Actually yes they are, trying to offer a fake note as payment is a crime.

This may raise suspicious and be a starting point for a proper criminal investigation, but that's it.

It's a perfectly legitimate business decision to see someone who's received stolen money as being involved in a fraud. Because they are.

How was it 'misused'? The accounts exist for sending and receiving money, and it wasn't a business transaction, although this is irrelevant in this case.

It was stolen money. It didn't rightfully belong to the OP.

We don't know yet whether the funds were confiscated. And it's not uncommon to sell a car for just a few hundred pounds. Not a big loss compared to other consequences.

It might have been a big loss to the person whose account it came from without their knowledge.

grumbler

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Receiving stolen money is an offence.

Any proof?
It possibly is an offence if one knowingly does this and this can be proven.

Actually yes they are, trying to offer a fake note as payment is a crime.

Have you heard that ~30% of £1 coins in circulation are fake?

It's a perfectly legitimate business decision to see someone who's received stolen money as being involved in a fraud. Because they are.

There is a big difference between "seeing" (=thinking/guessins) and spreading this around as a fact (= slander/libel)

It was stolen money. It didn't rightfully belong to the OP.

This doesn't answer the question asked. Typically, a receiver can't know the history of the money.

It might have been a big loss to the person whose account it came from without their knowledge.

OOT again.

Shakin_Steve

I love when the OP lights the blue touch paper...then retires.:D