Lloyds banking group closing accounts - cifas?

eskbanker

Deleted_User said:

CIFAS markers are just not put on there for nothing and it's quite rare that a financial provider these days would just decide to "put one on there" out of the blue because something looked dodgy, there has to be a burden of proof. 

Previously it was the opposite and financial providers where applying them willy nilly without following correct procedures, that practice has now ended and CIFAS members are now only allowed to load information on there when A a provable criminal offence has been committed and B where it can be deemed reasonably certain the first party has been involved.

Do you have any reliable documentary support for that change in practice/procedure/regulation?  I don't recall hearing about it before....

[Deleted User]

It's good that they've confirmed that it's a commercial decision as you should be able to move on to a fresh start. Might I suggest using Apple or Google Pay (with your next provider) as this could reduce cards going missing?

kaMelo

Deleted_User said:

Lauren01342 said:

Hi everyone,

first post here and I know similar has been posted before but could not find the final outcome.

long sorry cut it short, I received a text message saying my accounts will be closed in 60 days. When I rang up they said for ordering too many replacement cards (I have but nothing too extreme). Anyway, I wondered would like be reported to cifas? The lady on the phone said she would highlight concerns to other banks.
I have requested a SAR for CIFAS and is currently blank.

my questions are:
1. if a Cifas marker was added when will it show?
2. How would banks highlight concerns to other banks?

Thank you 

CIFAS markers are just not put on there for nothing and it's quite rare that a financial provider these days would just decide to "put one on there" out of the blue because something looked dodgy, there has to be a burden of proof. 

Previously it was the opposite and financial providers where applying them willy nilly without following correct procedures, that practice has now ended and CIFAS members are now only allowed to load information on there when A a provable criminal offence has been committed and B where it can be deemed reasonably certain the first party has been involved. 

For example Barclay's had loaded information about me onto N Hunter a few years ago suggesting that I attempted to open a bank account with a false identity document with a false address simply because I used a driving license with a previous address that I lived at to show as ID in the branch, this was obviously wrong as the document itself was not false, and nor was the address itself, the marker was eventually removed by N Hunter as Barclays themselves refused to do so, however it did not result in a cifas marker as Barclays clearly did not have any evidence to suggest that identity document I provided was in fact "false" and therefore the evidential standard for applying a CIFAS marker was not met.

CIFAS and National Hunter are not the same thing. Nothing has changed regarding CIFAS which is and always has had a high bar for placing markers.
For CIFAS there must be a genuine belief a financial crime has been committed or attempted, documented evidence that the institution could confidently use to report this act to the police and closure of the connected account.

National Hunter is more like an archive which is used to track changes to highlight anyone "gaming the system" so as to speak. In your case it worked as intended,

Your own words, " I used a driving license with a previous address that I lived at to show as ID in the branch"

Barclays merely reported to National Hunter the factual information you supplied to them. The fact you supplied them with an invalid ID document that contradicted other information available is on you not Barclays.