Getting a mortgage with marker on fraud database.

Thrugelmir

Col_Buch said:

Thrugelmir said:

Col_Buch said:

I just find it baffling that all of someone’s private and personal data- bank details, employment, addresses etc etc can be passed on without your knowledge. I’m guessing there’s some small print, that you sign a declaration somewhere for them to share during the process. 

National Hunter is operated by Experian on behalf of all the UK's major lenders. Fraud costs the financial industry considerable of money. Sharing data is a cost effective way of blocking attempts to circumnavigate each lenders own systems in it's tracks. Thereby reducing losses. Every application form you sign includes a comprehensive declaration and terms that you agree to. Most importantly you agree to be truthfull. Financial relationships depend on trust. No trust no relationship. 

I don’t quite understand this response. Information I provided was truthful, I’m trying to establish if it has been changed by the first broker I used. 

The information provided on any applications you have made for any financial products will be compared and differences noted. That's the function of NH. Salary , employment history, being in a DMP,   number of dependents, address history etc etc. You'd be surprised how many people think it's a game. Where omitting details will improve their chances of getting an application past the underwriters. Always check what somebody else has completed on your behalf. As you'll carry the can not them. 

Col_Buch

@Thrugelmir I totally understand you’re comment and yes I probably was a little bit naive with the process this time around. I completed in 2018 on a previous property and let the broker do everything, never once looked over the paperwork everything went swimmingly and all complete in 12 weeks. I guess I put the same trust in the first broker this time, but lesson learned. Maybe a tough detrimental lesson too. Only time will tell. 

I will update the thread once I know more. 

Sistergold

Just keep pressing OP. With some perseverance you should be able to sort this out. 

Riva69

Accusation of fraud is a serious allegation and should need to be fully evidenced with a legal right of response/defence allowed. There are many cases of inaccurate entries/markers onto these databases listed on the financial ombudsman decision website and probably thousands and thousands more of which people have no idea they have been listed and are just getting turned down for credit etc.

The markers stay on a persons record for 6 years and the bank placing the marker has no legal obligation to let the person know they have placed them on a register that informs other lenders they have made a fraudulent or inconsistent application. The marker on the register does result in declined mortgages, cancelled bank accounts and cancelled insurances because the data is shared every time the person makes a new credit application. 

Cifas is different as the institution loading the fraud marker to Cifas has to enough have evidence of fraud that they believe would allow them to make a report to the police, whereas Synectics and national Hunter don’t, meaning even a mistake on an application such as a missed address, time spent living at an address, misspelt name on payslip, forgetting a debt or default can be marked as fraud. 

And often there is no opportunity for the person who has made the mistake to be able to rectify it as the person is not even aware this has occurred. Synectics only has 2 entries which is clear or refer. Refer means suspicion of fraud and every time the customer makes another application for credit or mortgage with another lender, this suspicion of fraud marker will be seen, resulting in an instant decline for almost every case.

it also takes about 6 months before it would get to the financial ombudsman, meaning you will almost certainly be unable to obtain a mortgage or credit within that time. 

It is shocking that people are getting placed on these registers and banks are allowed to do this without giving people the opportunity to challenge it, especially as being labelled a fraud can have severe and long lasting consequences. 

Chris_English

Riva69 said:

Accusation of fraud is a serious allegation and should need to be fully evidenced with a legal right of response/defence allowed. There are many cases of inaccurate entries/markers onto these databases listed on the financial ombudsman decision website and probably thousands and thousands more of which people have no idea they have been listed and are just getting turned down for credit etc.

The markers stay on a persons record for 6 years and the bank placing the marker has no legal obligation to let the person know they have placed them on a register that informs other lenders they have made a fraudulent or inconsistent application. The marker on the register does result in declined mortgages, cancelled bank accounts and cancelled insurances because the data is shared every time the person makes a new credit application. 

Cifas is different as the institution loading the fraud marker to Cifas has to enough have evidence of fraud that they believe would allow them to make a report to the police, whereas Synectics and national Hunter don’t, meaning even a mistake on an application such as a missed address, time spent living at an address, misspelt name on payslip, forgetting a debt or default can be marked as fraud. 

And often there is no opportunity for the person who has made the mistake to be able to rectify it as the person is not even aware this has occurred. Synectics only has 2 entries which is clear or refer. Refer means suspicion of fraud and every time the customer makes another application for credit or mortgage with another lender, this suspicion of fraud marker will be seen, resulting in an instant decline for almost every case.

it also takes about 6 months before it would get to the financial ombudsman, meaning you will almost certainly be unable to obtain a mortgage or credit within that time. 

It is shocking that people are getting placed on these registers and banks are allowed to do this without giving people the opportunity to challenge it, especially as being labelled a fraud can have severe and long lasting consequences. 

It’s a response to huge losses on loans extended to fraudulent applicants. If an incorrect entry has been made then there’s no need to get the ombudsman involved, as the company reporting it will change it when given the correct information.

What often seems to happen though is that people have actually given different information on different companies’ systems, imagining that it’s a minor issue to leave off an address, for example, or a period of unemployment, and that this is picked up.

The alternative is that lenders return to the old system of only lending to people who the local branch manager believes are a good prospect, which would just shut off the credit market for most of the people who are currently being excluded by the credit agencies.

Riva69

I wish that was the case but the companies usually refuse to engage with you because someone somewhere has labelled you as a fraud so they usually give a final response via a complaint you have made which means your only option is the financial ombudsman, which can take months. 

Col_Buch

I agree it should be made clear to you why you’re being declined, it’s like it’s a big secret when potentially it could be an honest mistake. 

I have spoken with both NH and Synetics and they’re not on there for 6 years, it’ll be between 6 months and 3 years. It’s dependent on the organisation who put the marker there. 

I have however been speaking to a mortgage broker, who would still be able to source a mortgage with these markets on there- it would just mean a greater scrutiny of documents provided/ requested. Although this is good news, I won’t be doing anything for at least 12 months anyway now I’ll focus on sorting this and just continue to save. 

steampowered

Chris_English said

It’s a response to huge losses on loans extended to fraudulent applicants. If an incorrect entry has been made then there’s no need to get the ombudsman involved, as the company reporting it will change it when given the correct information.
...
The alternative is that lenders return to the old system of only lending to people who the local branch manager believes are a good prospect, which would just shut off the credit market for most of the people who are currently being excluded by the credit agencies.

I think a better alternative is to have a properly managed, transparent and accountable system. It doesn't sit right that people who are completely innocent can be blacklisted from the mainstream financial system without their knowledge and without any checks or right of appeal. 

Hopefully the company involved will fix the reporting when given the correct information - but if the Op has indeed been blacklisted I wouldn't hold up much hope.

The system reminds me of the situation where people were getting blacklisted from construction jobs with no accountability or oversight in the system, thankfully those people were awarded thousands of pounds in compensation:  like https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/14/50-blacklisted-trade-unionists-win-19m-from-building-firms. 

Thrugelmir

steampowered said:

Chris_English said

It’s a response to huge losses on loans extended to fraudulent applicants. If an incorrect entry has been made then there’s no need to get the ombudsman involved, as the company reporting it will change it when given the correct information.
...
The alternative is that lenders return to the old system of only lending to people who the local branch manager believes are a good prospect, which would just shut off the credit market for most of the people who are currently being excluded by the credit agencies.

I think a better alternative is to have a properly managed, transparent and accountable system. It doesn't sit right that people who are completely innocent can be blacklisted from the mainstream financial system without their knowledge and without any checks or right of appeal. 

Then lending interest rates will rise for everyone. Micro management is extremely expensive. After many decades in finance. I can assure you that many people have no hesitation in lying. Not the majority, but sufficient to cause huge losses if not addressed. Again most people should be able to identify the cause if they diligently review their own credit histories and information supplied when making applications.

SuseOrm

 I got one removed by Aldermore simply because what they presented - and was recorded against my name - was opinion not fact.  They conceded it was opinion not fact and took it down but what if they hadn’t ?