Unjustified CIFAS Warning

letitbe90

tenchy wrote: »

I think the problem here is that you're conflating "something dodgy" with proven fraud. The former could be just about anything and is highly subjective. Why is there not a 'proven fraud' marker on CIFAS (unless cats 5-8 require proof)? The problems appear to be with categories 3 and 4, where this largely unregulated organisation is generously allowing itself to post these categories on the strength of 'reasonable belief'.

Of course it is highly subjective, they have controls in place to try ascertain things to a reasonable degree - very little can be proven 100% unless you do a lengthy investigation. A financial organisation is already losing money by refusing business, it doesn't want to lose more money in ongoing investigations.

Anyway, I think my post was to ascertain whether, there was any doctoring of statements done, false documents or otherwise, be it himself or the broker. Unfortunately, these are not rare occurances in the mortgage world where people are very desperate and go by word of mouth of family and friends of how they got away with it.

Thrugelmir

letitbe90 wrote: »

Of course it is highly subjective, they have controls in place to try ascertain things to a reasonable degree - very little can be proven 100% unless you do a lengthy investigation. A financial organisation is already losing money by refusing business, it doesn't want to lose more money in ongoing investigations.

Anyway, I think my post was to ascertain whether, there was any doctoring of statements done, false documents or otherwise, be it himself or the broker. Unfortunately, these are not rare occurances in the mortgage world where people are very desperate and go by word of mouth of family and friends of how they got away with it.

Possible that discrepancies between applications were noted by National Hunter as part of the initial checking process.