Unwarranted Cat 6 Cifas Marker from Sky

Ed-1

ozzy49 wrote: »

I'm trying to upload an image of the letter but as I'm a noob, I can't do it

Use http://tinypic.com to upload it and copy the link here (you might need to put spaces in the link if it won't let you because of being a newbie).

muhandis

It’s from one of the upheld cases in the FOS website where a customer complained that the bank had unfairly placed a marker against him on the CIFAS database.

It’s devastating when poorly trained and/or trigger happy staff get these kind of things wrong.

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

This is interesting. Can you say where the statement comes from? It reads like a finding by the regulator following a complaint. From the many posts we get here about problems with CIFAS it seems that few organisations take heed of this protocol and are quite happy to blacklist individuals based on suspicion only.

ozzy49

boo_star wrote: »

Recently? Sky Mobile has been going for 2 1/2 years :rotfl:

That's exactly what I was thinking

Candyapple wrote: »

The only way you’ll get this resolved in time to get your mortgage is if you instruct a solicitor to take legal action against Sky and also compensation for the stress/delay/potential loss of mortgage due to their error.

If you’re not willing to go that far, then if you have a property in the pipeline you may as well pull out now as this will take months to be resolved, I’d hazard a guess at 6.

I'm happy to start legal action but I can't seem to find a Solicitor who has in depth knowledge of fraud/CIFAS. Are there that could be recommended by anyone? I know I'd win the case as the marker is totally unwarranted as they have agreed, would I get my legal costs back and would I be entitled to any money to cover my current losses of having to pay the broker again for another application, paying the Amex Platinum fee again as they've cancelled my accounts etc?

muhandis wrote: »

1. Don't put any stock in what Sky tells you over the phone.

2. Put in a formal complaint to Sky asking that the marker be removed. (I think you've done this already and hope you have stressed the impact it is having on your life). Start the 8 week clock or wait for their final response (best case scenario, the letter they are supposedly sending you is the final response).

3. Call the FOS tomorrow morning, explain the issue, the impact it is having on your life and ask them if you can complain right now or whether you need to wait for Sky's final response. From experience (albeit 4 years ago), their customer support is very knowledgeable and there are very few situations they haven't come across.

In your place, I would pull out of any mortgage (or other credit) related activities at the moment as this will take at least a few weeks and more realistically a few months to resolve.


FYI, this is what Sky is ought to have satisfied itself with before recording a fraud marker against your name on CIFAS -

To record information with CIFAS, xxxxxx needed to have enough evidence to make a formal complaint to the police or other relevant law enforcement agencies. CIFAS’s guidance says that the business must have carried out checks of sufficient depth to satisfy this standard of proof, and any filing should be for confirmed cases of fraud, rather than just having a suspicion.

Thanks muhandis, I have requested that the letter is annotated with Final Response Letter at the top so I can take it further without delay. Let's see what they come back with.

I'll give FOS a call in the morning. I was hoping that the letter Sky provide could be sent to the lending bank who would understand what was going on and they could push my application through without me needing to wait until removal of the marker.

I also noted in my letter and email to Sky was you stated about having enough prove that I would be found guilty of fraud in Court as I'd read this somewhere else online too.

ozzy49

Ed-1 wrote: »

Use http://tinypic.com to upload it and copy the link here (you might need to put spaces in the link if it won't let you because of being a newbie).

Thanks Ed. The link for the letter is htt ps://imgur.co m/a/hTJ7Xk9

Ed-1

ozzy49 wrote: »

Thanks Ed. The link for the letter is htt ps://imgur.co m/a/hTJ7Xk9

For the benefit of everyone else:

boo_star

Ed-1 wrote: »

For the benefit of everyone else:

I'm guessing that when the OP contacted the bank they claimed the money back as a fraudulent transaction and Sky have then decided that the whole account was fraudulently set up.

I wonder if Sky have seen the letter? If they have then their belief that it must have been the bank who did it is absurd, it's bloody obvious that Sky did it.

ozzy49

Yes it was recorded by my bank as a fraudulent transaction. When I spoke to the bank asking for details on the payment they advised that it was an online order. I had placed no such order and I didn't have subscriptions with Sky as far as I was aware. Both myself and the Bank were under the impression that the payment was indeed fraudulent.

Sky have seen the letter today as they asked me to send a photo of it. They still insisted it wasn't done by them and stated that their name is on it only because they are the party who the fraud was committed against but it was in fact the bank who will have placed the marker. I explained that this was absurd but they continued to insist that it was impossible for them to add a marker and therefore impossible for them to remove.

boo_star

ozzy49 wrote: »

Yes it was recorded by my bank as a fraudulent transaction. When I spoke to the bank asking for details on the payment they advised that it was an online order. I had placed no such order and I didn't have subscriptions with Sky as far as I was aware. Both myself and the Bank were under the impression that the payment was indeed fraudulent.

Sky have seen the letter today as they asked me to send a photo of it. They still insisted it wasn't done by them and stated that their name is on it only because they are the party who the fraud was committed against but it was in fact the bank who will have placed the marker. I explained that this was absurd but they continued to insist that it was impossible for them to add a marker and therefore impossible for them to remove.

Muppets. It says "entry filed by" !!!!!!!

ozzy49

I know! He kept pointing to the fact that it says “Bank, Building Society” next to “Checks carried out by member..." and therefore it means that the bank placed the marker.

I explained that this only meant they (Sky) checked the transaction with my bank, not that the bank added the marker but they still didn't get it so I gave up. How can you argue or reason it someone who says black is white?!

As far as my bank was aware at the time, I was the victim of fraud so they wouldn't have loaded the marker anyway.

Sky just appear to be extremely incompetent even at the highest levels. I hope the letter they're going to send explicitly states that they agree the marker is unwarranted and whilst they'd want to remove it, they don't know how to. I'm not holding my breath though.

I'm seriously considering filing a court claim myself or getting a solicitor involved so I can get a quick resolution but don't know where to start and can't find a solicitor who has experience with CIFAS.

scholesfan88

Where is your agreement with Hughes Direct that at the end of the 12 month term that you had to ring up to continue the services?

This sounds to me that after the 12 month initial term you had to call them to cancel. You reported to your bank that it was a fraudulent transaction because you forgot to cancel and didn't want to pay SKY and it's gone belly up.