Incorrect CIFAS Marker.... made to feel like a criminal

Thrugelmir

Shakin_Steve said:

It's not just the fact that some banks seem to have a cavalier attitude to putting customers in a predicament without proper and timely investigation, it's also the fact that any of our so called consumer champions seem loathe to bring these things to the publics attention. 

Martin Lewis should be doing a half hour slot on this, instead of the repetitive 'save on energy bills' we get every week. Even if the banks refuse to appear or comment, the fact that it's on national TV would surely make them more understanding of the damage they do by freezing an account.
I simply do not believe that these things cannot be brought to a conclusion, and the account unfrozen/closed, in around a week. Four, six, even eight weeks smacks of laziness.

No mileage for ML in delving into the murky world of current account activity.  The overwhelming majority never have any issues with their accounts. Why would they? Normal daily banking activity is very straightforward. 

Shakin_Steve

eskbanker said:

Shakin_Steve said:

It's not just the fact that some banks seem to have a cavalier attitude to putting customers in a predicament without proper and timely investigation, it's also the fact that any of our so called consumer champions seem loathe to bring these things to the publics attention. 

Martin Lewis should be doing a half hour slot on this, instead of the repetitive 'save on energy bills' we get every week. Even if the banks refuse to appear or comment, the fact that it's on national TV would surely make them more understanding of the damage they do by freezing an account.

Personally I'm not surprised that ML would focus on matters of interest to the majority of his audience - there will be tens of millions who can benefit from switching energy providers, but the number of customers reported to CIFAS by banks is probably in the tens or hundreds of thousands (anyone know?) and I'm guessing that the proportion of 'false positives' among those will be small.  Obviously such occurrences are highly disruptive for those customers so I'm not downplaying their impact, but simply suggesting that the scale of the issue is unlikely to be as significant as might be inferred from the threads on here.

Perhaps I'm being naive here but would hope that the FCA (and maybe NCA) would monitor the level of such reporting by each bank and take action if there's any evidence of trigger-happy over-reporting - banks are probably obliged to err on the side of caution by the AML legislation, which obviously disadvantages innocent customers initially perceived as suspicious, but that's not the same as reporting customers for the fun of it, and naturally it's usually only one side of the story that's told by aggrieved posters on here....

Some of that is just supposition though, perhaps anyone with actual inside knowledge can confirm or deny?

My main point was the time scale. I sincerely do not believe that it takes so long to investigate even the most simple of cases. We've had people post on here who have been left dangling for months. While I appreciate that, sometimes, we may not be getting the full picture, I believe that most posters are genuine. 

I would hate to be in their position just to be told "You'll just have to wait, the banks take their own sweet time" while my life was on hold indeterminately. 

eskbanker

Shakin_Steve said:
While I appreciate that, sometimes, we may not be getting the full picture, I believe that most posters are genuine.

Yes, I wasn't trying to imply that such posters aren't genuine, just that they're inevitably looking at the situation from one perspective and so may either be deliberately selective or inadvertently so (not knowing what actions are likely to trigger investigations), or simply unaware of what's happening (which is obviously a root cause of much of the frustration).

Shakin_Steve said:

My main point was the time scale. I sincerely do not believe that it takes so long to investigate even the most simple of cases. We've had people post on here who have been left dangling for months.

[...]

I would hate to be in their position just to be told "You'll just have to wait, the banks take their own sweet time" while my life was on hold indeterminately. 

Absolutely, I would also hate to be in that position!  I agree that some who aren't familiar with the process and its timescales will perceive it as banks 'taking their own sweet time', but don't know enough about it myself to comment with any authority either - is there anything specific that leads to your view that these investigations could be dealt with quicker or is it just a perception that there's a lack of urgency?  Why do you think banks would drag these out?

Shakin_Steve

No, there's nothing specific, just my perception, I guess. But, without some sort of light being shone on the process, how is anyone supposed to see it as anything other than tardiness? 

Now you'll say that banks cannot allow any insight into the process because that may be seen as tipping off the customer and you'll, once again, be right.

It's disappointing.

eskbanker

Shakin_Steve said:

No, there's nothing specific, just my perception, I guess. But, without some sort of light being shone on the process, how is anyone supposed to see it as anything other than tardiness? 

Now you'll say that banks cannot allow any insight into the process because that may be seen as tipping off the customer and you'll, once again, be right.

It's disappointing.

No need for me to post if someone else types them for me

However, I do agree that more transparency would help but accept that it's impractical as you say, but can sympathise with any affected customer who's already stressed out and who will become ever more agitated at the lack of clarity about what's happening to them and how long it'll take.  That doesn't necessarily mean the banks are doing anything wrong of course, but I'm not trying to defend them here!

SpreadableToast

Chino said:

SpreadableToast said:

Take the money.  £750 is a very reasonable amount of compensation even under the circumstances you've described.

Bearing in mind the grief that Barclays' actions have caused the OP, I think compensation of at least ten times that amount would be by no means unreasonable.

Banks need to be made to understand that capriciously blocking a customer's account and adding Cifas markers causes real suffering for that customer. Unfortunately, it is too easy for banks to hide behind the law on this and leave the customer high and dry the second someone cries "fraud".

It's completely unreasonable.  The OP was offered roughly 2 weeks pay at 25 and over minimum wage rates, which if the situation is resolved is quite reasonable given the circumstances.  And you think 7 and a half grand is "reasonable"?

This forum is populated by complete dreamers.

adamp87

SpreadableToast said:

Chino said:

SpreadableToast said:

Take the money.  £750 is a very reasonable amount of compensation even under the circumstances you've described.

Bearing in mind the grief that Barclays' actions have caused the OP, I think compensation of at least ten times that amount would be by no means unreasonable.

Banks need to be made to understand that capriciously blocking a customer's account and adding Cifas markers causes real suffering for that customer. Unfortunately, it is too easy for banks to hide behind the law on this and leave the customer high and dry the second someone cries "fraud".

It's completely unreasonable.  The OP was offered roughly 2 weeks pay at 25 and over minimum wage rates, which if the situation is resolved is quite reasonable given the circumstances.  And you think 7 and a half grand is "reasonable"?

This forum is populated by complete dreamers.

£7500 is ridiculous, there’s not a chance that would be authorised, even with the hardships OP has had recently.

OP I’d take the offer & double check the markers are moved. You could also write to the Money correspondents in the Guardian.. etc they often highlight these issues & contact the banks further for explanations/resolutions for customers.

Canski

mab3000 said:

How do you know that the actions of Santander is to do with this issue with Barclays. This could be a completely unrelated issue, Santander will not have told you why they have decided to close your account, if they suspect fraudulent activity then they wouldn’t be allowed to tell you due to it being illegal to “tip you off”. 

You say you transferred £22k from your business to your personal account. Where was this £22k from? Why did it get transferred to your personal account? As from your post suggests Santander deciding to close your account with immediate effect happening shortly after this transfer was made, I have a feeling it’s to do with these funds rather than the marker. 

To be honest because Santander won't discuss the reasons for the account closure with me and having had large sums go through in the past without any problems I put 2 and 2 together to make 4 . You could be right but how would I know. I'm writing to Santander tomorrow with a copy of the apology letter rom Barclays to see if they will reverse their decision but they have already said over the phone that it is highly unlikely that it will happen. The funds were repayments for loans to the business that I had made during lockdown and also some drawings for myself.

Canski

Chino said:

SpreadableToast said:

Take the money.  £750 is a very reasonable amount of compensation even under the circumstances you've described.

Bearing in mind the grief that Barclays' actions have caused the OP, I think compensation of at least ten times that amount would be by no means unreasonable.

Banks need to be made to understand that capriciously blocking a customer's account and adding Cifas markers causes real suffering for that customer. Unfortunately, it is too easy for banks to hide behind the law on this and leave the customer high and dry the second someone cries "fraud".

I agree with this. Not for the money but to reflect the level of distress, embarrassment and inconvenience this has caused me. If I had inflicted the same level of distress on someone else by being negligent twice I would expect to be paying out far more than this. They were negligent first in opening the account and secondly by not removing the marker.

Canski

penners324 said:

I'd be checking your credit history with the CRAs today to make sure the CIFAS marker is removed.

Yes I've done that. Thanks.