Final Response from METRO Bank and CIFAS Marker Removal

D3xt3r5L4b

fr33zy said:

camelot1971 said:

Did you copy and paste that? So many spelling mistakes...

No i typed it.  Srory I did nto relaize tihs wsa a sepelling cmopoeitotn.

No but it helps differentiating between a genuine letter/email and one from the Prince of Nigeria...

Yahoo_Mail

fr33zy said:

Yahoo_Mail said:

fr33zy said:

Thank you guys.  I like many of you took D3xt3r5L4b's comments to be unfounded and trolling.  I took the advice of several real solicitors who advised the same, that I was the innocent party from a vehicle sale, and thatI have been penalised for this, which is unfair.  I have prepaped a letter to CIFAS and hopefully will update if/when the marker is removed.

CIFAS will refer you to Metro, who will just refer you to the FOS as they seem to feel the matter is closed.  Better save time and go to the FOS directly.

CIFAS cannot refer me to Metro.  If you understand the process, you wouldn't type garbage.  Metro have already issued their final response letter, and refused to uphold my complaint.  The process from here is to escalate the dispute to CIFAS themselves who will do an independent review of the case, according to the legal process and the final step would be the FOS if that fails.

We'll see.

I fully expect a response from you in a month or two stating that it has been removed, and you have been awarded eleventy bajillion pounds in compensation.

fr33zy

For complete transparency, I have a little more information.  While this was a legitimate sale of my car, there may be reasons for Metro Bank to "wrongly assume" I was involved in something.  Unknown to me until I recently requested a full copy of my full transaction history from Metro Bank, I saw a transfer one year ago fro the same individual for £500 for a small business transaction of buying USD (I run a money exchange service with my business partner).  While the buyer is not personally known to me, he is a friend of my business partner who agreed to the purchase of the car.  This may be why Metro stated in their final response that 'this person may be known to you' which confused me at the time.

Speaking to this individual recently,  I was sure he was messing me around and he claimed his innocence, providing copies of his bank statements.  It shows he transferred funds of 9500 from his personal Lloyds account to his personal HSBC account, before making the payment to me of 8250.  He also sent me an audio call of part of the call he had with HSBC three days after the money was debited from my account by Metro.  This call confirms that HSBC had requested the funds back from Metro but they had not been received yet.  The funds were requested by HSBC on request of Lloyds.  What I don't understand is why this is the case.  The call also said that his HSBC account would be restricted until the return of the money from Metro.  On the call they also asked permission from him to debit the balance of 1250 (9500 less 8250) from his HSBC account which he agreed to and appears on his statement as 'AS ADVISED'.  His transactions do not show the money going back into his account, but his account appears to be active as there are transactions after the restriction, cash withdrawals, restaurants etc.  He claims not to have had the money back to this day, but I assume HSBC got it back and sent it directly to Lloyds.

I made no attempts to withdraw or move this money after it was sent, so being a 'money mule' doesn't make sense.  My account was fully active for at least 7 days after receipt of the funds.  I then noticed it wasn't working when I used it for a contactless payment on the bus. and then 10 days later the 8250 payment was debited by the bank, leaving my 9000 remaining balance inaccessible. 

I think Metro went a step too far.  After debiting the 8250, they could simply have unrestricted my account, but they carried out an investigation and wrongly concluded I was involved in something before reporting me to CIFAS and closing my account. 

D3xt3r5L4b

Accounts have to be restricted whilst investigations are carried out 

jimbo26

I can see why Metro Bank has come to the conclusion it has. This does put a slightly different slant on things and may make your chances of getting it successfully removed slimmer.

av15

Assuming your business has still been able to operate since your personal account was closed in January - and, importantly, to be compliant with MSB regulatory requirements - the business must have a bank account in its own name. So why did a business transaction from the car buyer pass through your personal account a year ago?

phillw

D3xt3r5L4b said:
No but it helps differentiating between a genuine letter/email and one from the Prince of Nigeria...

Not really. I forwarded a scam email from a bank that had lots of spelling and grammer mistakes and a "click here to login to your account" button, they replied saying that it wasn't a scam & they had sent it out.
Most scammers make it look so unbelievable that someone would have to overlook a lot, which makes the marks more likely to go ahead later. But not all scammers do that.
The worst advice ever is to trust something just because it has no spelling mistakes.

fr33zy

av15 said:

Assuming your business has still been able to operate since your personal account was closed in January - and, importantly, to be compliant with MSB regulatory requirements - the business must have a bank account in its own name. So why did a business transaction from the car buyer pass through your personal account a year ago?

Its incredibly difficult to open a business bank account with a money exchange operation, which you probably don't understand.  The business itself complies with all regulatory requirements, pays its busniess taxes etc, but no bank so far has allowed a business account to be opened.  All funds are retained in cash, in a safe and security deposit boxes.

I don't recall the specifics of why this particular transation went through, sometimes regular clients or friends need a small amount of currency which we may not be holding or available at the time, so we do business with other local money exchanges on trust and payments paid later, but for £500 its a drop in the ocean of our yearly turnover.  Just thought it was worth mentioning in light of the incredible coincidence that this same individual purchased my car a year later.

fr33zy

jimbo26 said:

I can see why Metro Bank has come to the conclusion it has. This does put a slightly different slant on things and may make your chances of getting it successfully removed slimmer.

Which part?  Its essentially the same issue.  I sold a car, got paid, buyer and his bank had a problem unrelated to me.  Payment requested and sent back, everyone is happy.  What fraud took place?  I can imagine anyone running a business or selling some personal item has the potential of being in receipt of fraudulant funds.  Does that mean you get a CIFAS fraud marker on your name for 6 years? Probably not.

Thrugelmir

fr33zy said:

av15 said:

Assuming your business has still been able to operate since your personal account was closed in January - and, importantly, to be compliant with MSB regulatory requirements - the business must have a bank account in its own name. So why did a business transaction from the car buyer pass through your personal account a year ago?

Its incredibly difficult to open a business bank account with a money exchange operation, which you probably don't understand.  The business itself complies with all regulatory requirements, pays its busniess taxes etc, but no bank so far has allowed a business account to be opened.  All funds are retained in cash, in a safe and security deposit boxes.

Perhaps the previous transaction had been flagged and your personal account was under surveillance.