Advice needed re: closed bank account and CIFAS

K_S

Argyl53 said:

K_S said:

@argyl53 The bar for most CIFAS markers is actually pretty high - There needs to be more than a suspicion or concern. It has to show it had reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime had been committed or attempted and that the evidence would support this being reported to the authorities.

Unfortunately (as you can see from the FOS database of upheld cases where customers had complained about unfair CIFAS markers), banks often ignore the above requirement, with often devastating consequences for the customers involved which take a lot of time and effort to resolve. So you are absolutely right to keep this issue in focus.

The good news in your case appears to be that the lender hasn't put in a CIFAS marker, at least as yet. Unless there is new information that comes up during the complaints process, I would think it very unlikely that proceeding with the complaint would lead to them applying for a CIFAS marker. Based on the limited info in your post, in your place I would also progress the complaint to its full extent, there's no expense involved on your part and only a bit of time and effort.

Thanks for your reply - this is the bit which confuses me and why I'm asking for advice. "Reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime has been committed" is more or less the same wording in the bank's T&Cs under which they closed my account. How can they possibly have reasonable grounds to believe I've carried out any illegal activity such as to immediately terminate my account, but not feel they have sufficient evidence to file a CIFAS marker? And yet I think surely if they did believe they had those grounds, they would have put a CIFAS marker against my name already? So I guess what I'm trying to find out is if anyone's ever heard of a bank filing a marker a few weeks or more after an account has been closed on the basis of perceived suspicion?.

@argyl53 I fully empathise with what you're feeling and it's completely understandable.

Whether or not there exist "Reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime has been committed" is probably quite subjective and something that can only be ascertained if it goes through a full FOS review.

Even then, I would assume that the FOS will give the bank more leeway in a scenario that didn't involve putting a CIFAS marker against your name, the argument being that simply shutting your account is a commercial decision that doesn't cause you any harm beyond the inconvenience of changing providers. As opposed to a CIFAS marker that can have serious consequences for your career and access to credit.

With regard to your second question about a delay before filing a CIFAS marker - I have no idea of what the internal processes are, but it is possible that any potential fraud marker on a customer goes through a review process and then (if it passes) a fraud marker is applied. That could mean that there is a delay. This is simply conjecture on my part.

fuzzylogic82

Argyl53 said:

K_S said:

@argyl53 The bar for most CIFAS markers is actually pretty high - There needs to be more than a suspicion or concern. It has to show it had reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime had been committed or attempted and that the evidence would support this being reported to the authorities.

Unfortunately (as you can see from the FOS database of upheld cases where customers had complained about unfair CIFAS markers), banks often ignore the above requirement, with often devastating consequences for the customers involved which take a lot of time and effort to resolve. So you are absolutely right to keep this issue in focus.

The good news in your case appears to be that the lender hasn't put in a CIFAS marker, at least as yet. Unless there is new information that comes up during the complaints process, I would think it very unlikely that proceeding with the complaint would lead to them applying for a CIFAS marker. Based on the limited info in your post, in your place I would also progress the complaint to its full extent, there's no expense involved on your part and only a bit of time and effort.

Thanks for your reply - this is the bit which confuses me and why I'm asking for advice. "Reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime has been committed" is more or less the same wording in the bank's T&Cs under which they closed my account. How can they possibly have reasonable grounds to believe I've carried out any illegal activity such as to immediately terminate my account, but not feel they have sufficient evidence to file a CIFAS marker? And yet I think surely if they did believe they had those grounds, they would have put a CIFAS marker against my name already? So I guess what I'm trying to find out is if anyone's ever heard of a bank filing a marker a few weeks or more after an account has been closed on the basis of perceived suspicion?

Same with freezing my account then unfreezing it. Doesn't restoring full access to my account and money for several days before closing it undermine their claimed reasons for closing?

The whole thing is awful. I'm sitting here knowing I haven't done anything wrong and having to worry that I might suddenly find one day any other accounts I have are closed and I'm blacklisted everywhere. I feel stupid now, for not realising earlier that paying cash in would look dodgy but also - why would I think that? From my perspective, all I was doing was paying my own money in to my own bank account, I didn't have any reason to think twice about that or ask myself what it might look like.

Please can I ask what was the outcome of this case?

TheSpectator

You can ask but seeing as OP was last active in November 2023 you are unlikely to get a response

MEM62

Argyl53 said:

K_S said:

@argyl53 The bar for most CIFAS markers is actually pretty high - There needs to be more than a suspicion or concern. It has to show it had reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime had been committed or attempted and that the evidence would support this being reported to the authorities.

Unfortunately (as you can see from the FOS database of upheld cases where customers had complained about unfair CIFAS markers), banks often ignore the above requirement, with often devastating consequences for the customers involved which take a lot of time and effort to resolve. So you are absolutely right to keep this issue in focus.

The good news in your case appears to be that the lender hasn't put in a CIFAS marker, at least as yet. Unless there is new information that comes up during the complaints process, I would think it very unlikely that proceeding with the complaint would lead to them applying for a CIFAS marker. Based on the limited info in your post, in your place I would also progress the complaint to its full extent, there's no expense involved on your part and only a bit of time and effort.

How can they possibly have reasonable grounds to believe I've carried out any illegal activity such as to immediately terminate my account, but not feel they have sufficient evidence to file a CIFAS marker? 

It is a matter of thresholds and it is quite possible that the bank considers that the activity on your account meets the threshold for the former but not the latter.  You assumption that the consideration in both cases is the same is incorrect. 

Argyl53 said:

K_S said:

@argyl53 The bar for most CIFAS markers is actually pretty high - There needs to be more than a suspicion or concern. It has to show it had reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime had been committed or attempted and that the evidence would support this being reported to the authorities.

Unfortunately (as you can see from the FOS database of upheld cases where customers had complained about unfair CIFAS markers), banks often ignore the above requirement, with often devastating consequences for the customers involved which take a lot of time and effort to resolve. So you are absolutely right to keep this issue in focus.

The good news in your case appears to be that the lender hasn't put in a CIFAS marker, at least as yet. Unless there is new information that comes up during the complaints process, I would think it very unlikely that proceeding with the complaint would lead to them applying for a CIFAS marker. Based on the limited info in your post, in your place I would also progress the complaint to its full extent, there's no expense involved on your part and only a bit of time and effort.

The whole thing is awful. I'm sitting here knowing I haven't done anything wrong and having to worry that I might suddenly find one day any other accounts I have are closed and I'm blacklisted everywhere. 

You don't need to have done anything wrong to trigger this.  The bank has seen something that has triggered their action, whether you have actually transgressed or not.  Remember, they do not know you personally.  This arises from the increasingly stringent checks that the banks are obligated to make and, on some occasions, the innocent are impacted by it.

     
 

Nasqueron

MEM62 said:

Argyl53 said:

K_S said:

@argyl53 The bar for most CIFAS markers is actually pretty high - There needs to be more than a suspicion or concern. It has to show it had reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime had been committed or attempted and that the evidence would support this being reported to the authorities.

Unfortunately (as you can see from the FOS database of upheld cases where customers had complained about unfair CIFAS markers), banks often ignore the above requirement, with often devastating consequences for the customers involved which take a lot of time and effort to resolve. So you are absolutely right to keep this issue in focus.

The good news in your case appears to be that the lender hasn't put in a CIFAS marker, at least as yet. Unless there is new information that comes up during the complaints process, I would think it very unlikely that proceeding with the complaint would lead to them applying for a CIFAS marker. Based on the limited info in your post, in your place I would also progress the complaint to its full extent, there's no expense involved on your part and only a bit of time and effort.

How can they possibly have reasonable grounds to believe I've carried out any illegal activity such as to immediately terminate my account, but not feel they have sufficient evidence to file a CIFAS marker? 

It is a matter of thresholds and it is quite possible that the bank considers that the activity on your account meets the threshold for the former but not the latter.  You assumption that the consideration in both cases is the same is incorrect. 

Argyl53 said:

K_S said:

@argyl53 The bar for most CIFAS markers is actually pretty high - There needs to be more than a suspicion or concern. It has to show it had reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime had been committed or attempted and that the evidence would support this being reported to the authorities.

Unfortunately (as you can see from the FOS database of upheld cases where customers had complained about unfair CIFAS markers), banks often ignore the above requirement, with often devastating consequences for the customers involved which take a lot of time and effort to resolve. So you are absolutely right to keep this issue in focus.

The good news in your case appears to be that the lender hasn't put in a CIFAS marker, at least as yet. Unless there is new information that comes up during the complaints process, I would think it very unlikely that proceeding with the complaint would lead to them applying for a CIFAS marker. Based on the limited info in your post, in your place I would also progress the complaint to its full extent, there's no expense involved on your part and only a bit of time and effort.

The whole thing is awful. I'm sitting here knowing I haven't done anything wrong and having to worry that I might suddenly find one day any other accounts I have are closed and I'm blacklisted everywhere. 

You don't need to have done anything wrong to trigger this.  The bank has seen something that has triggered their action, whether you have actually transgressed or not.  Remember, they do not know you personally.  This arises from the increasingly stringent checks that the banks are obligated to make and, on some occasions, the innocent are impacted by it.

     
 

This is a really old thread, OP has not been on the forum since 2023

DullGreyGuy

MEM62 said:

Argyl53 said:

K_S said:

@argyl53 The bar for most CIFAS markers is actually pretty high - There needs to be more than a suspicion or concern. It has to show it had reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime had been committed or attempted and that the evidence would support this being reported to the authorities.

Unfortunately (as you can see from the FOS database of upheld cases where customers had complained about unfair CIFAS markers), banks often ignore the above requirement, with often devastating consequences for the customers involved which take a lot of time and effort to resolve. So you are absolutely right to keep this issue in focus.

The good news in your case appears to be that the lender hasn't put in a CIFAS marker, at least as yet. Unless there is new information that comes up during the complaints process, I would think it very unlikely that proceeding with the complaint would lead to them applying for a CIFAS marker. Based on the limited info in your post, in your place I would also progress the complaint to its full extent, there's no expense involved on your part and only a bit of time and effort.

How can they possibly have reasonable grounds to believe I've carried out any illegal activity such as to immediately terminate my account, but not feel they have sufficient evidence to file a CIFAS marker? 

It is a matter of thresholds and it is quite possible that the bank considers that the activity on your account meets the threshold for the former but not the latter.  You assumption that the consideration in both cases is the same is incorrect. 

Argyl53 said:

K_S said:

@argyl53 The bar for most CIFAS markers is actually pretty high - There needs to be more than a suspicion or concern. It has to show it had reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime had been committed or attempted and that the evidence would support this being reported to the authorities.

Unfortunately (as you can see from the FOS database of upheld cases where customers had complained about unfair CIFAS markers), banks often ignore the above requirement, with often devastating consequences for the customers involved which take a lot of time and effort to resolve. So you are absolutely right to keep this issue in focus.

The good news in your case appears to be that the lender hasn't put in a CIFAS marker, at least as yet. Unless there is new information that comes up during the complaints process, I would think it very unlikely that proceeding with the complaint would lead to them applying for a CIFAS marker. Based on the limited info in your post, in your place I would also progress the complaint to its full extent, there's no expense involved on your part and only a bit of time and effort.

The whole thing is awful. I'm sitting here knowing I haven't done anything wrong and having to worry that I might suddenly find one day any other accounts I have are closed and I'm blacklisted everywhere. 

You don't need to have done anything wrong to trigger this.  The bank has seen something that has triggered their action, whether you have actually transgressed or not.  Remember, they do not know you personally.  This arises from the increasingly stringent checks that the banks are obligated to make and, on some occasions, the innocent are impacted by it.

     
 

Appreciate this is an old thread but given its already been resurrected...

The bank closed the account with no notice, this is a significant matter and one the Financial Ombudsman will consider as regulations require notice to be given other than in exceptional circumstances. 

Banks can provide information to the ombudsman by discretion, that is they ombudsman is told the reason for the purposes of adjudicating on if it was fair or not but are not allowed to pass the reason on to the consumer. There are cases where the ombudsman have said their evidence/reason was insufficient and so were required to pay compensation for the lack of notice period, in other cases they say the no notice was reasonable given the privately shared evidence. 

MEM62

Nasqueron said:

MEM62 said:

Argyl53 said:

K_S said:

@argyl53 The bar for most CIFAS markers is actually pretty high - There needs to be more than a suspicion or concern. It has to show it had reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime had been committed or attempted and that the evidence would support this being reported to the authorities.

Unfortunately (as you can see from the FOS database of upheld cases where customers had complained about unfair CIFAS markers), banks often ignore the above requirement, with often devastating consequences for the customers involved which take a lot of time and effort to resolve. So you are absolutely right to keep this issue in focus.

The good news in your case appears to be that the lender hasn't put in a CIFAS marker, at least as yet. Unless there is new information that comes up during the complaints process, I would think it very unlikely that proceeding with the complaint would lead to them applying for a CIFAS marker. Based on the limited info in your post, in your place I would also progress the complaint to its full extent, there's no expense involved on your part and only a bit of time and effort.

How can they possibly have reasonable grounds to believe I've carried out any illegal activity such as to immediately terminate my account, but not feel they have sufficient evidence to file a CIFAS marker? 

It is a matter of thresholds and it is quite possible that the bank considers that the activity on your account meets the threshold for the former but not the latter.  You assumption that the consideration in both cases is the same is incorrect. 

Argyl53 said:

K_S said:

@argyl53 The bar for most CIFAS markers is actually pretty high - There needs to be more than a suspicion or concern. It has to show it had reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime had been committed or attempted and that the evidence would support this being reported to the authorities.

Unfortunately (as you can see from the FOS database of upheld cases where customers had complained about unfair CIFAS markers), banks often ignore the above requirement, with often devastating consequences for the customers involved which take a lot of time and effort to resolve. So you are absolutely right to keep this issue in focus.

The good news in your case appears to be that the lender hasn't put in a CIFAS marker, at least as yet. Unless there is new information that comes up during the complaints process, I would think it very unlikely that proceeding with the complaint would lead to them applying for a CIFAS marker. Based on the limited info in your post, in your place I would also progress the complaint to its full extent, there's no expense involved on your part and only a bit of time and effort.

The whole thing is awful. I'm sitting here knowing I haven't done anything wrong and having to worry that I might suddenly find one day any other accounts I have are closed and I'm blacklisted everywhere. 

You don't need to have done anything wrong to trigger this.  The bank has seen something that has triggered their action, whether you have actually transgressed or not.  Remember, they do not know you personally.  This arises from the increasingly stringent checks that the banks are obligated to make and, on some occasions, the innocent are impacted by it.

     
 

This is a really old thread, OP has not been on the forum since 2023

Oh yeah  :-0

Gerry1

@fuzzylogic82

To improve your chances of getting a reply on a thread that's no longer a hot topic, mention the relevant person like this: @Argyl53

Or send a private message.

Argyl53

fuzzylogic82 said:

Argyl53 said:

K_S said:

@argyl53 The bar for most CIFAS markers is actually pretty high - There needs to be more than a suspicion or concern. It has to show it had reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime had been committed or attempted and that the evidence would support this being reported to the authorities.

Unfortunately (as you can see from the FOS database of upheld cases where customers had complained about unfair CIFAS markers), banks often ignore the above requirement, with often devastating consequences for the customers involved which take a lot of time and effort to resolve. So you are absolutely right to keep this issue in focus.

The good news in your case appears to be that the lender hasn't put in a CIFAS marker, at least as yet. Unless there is new information that comes up during the complaints process, I would think it very unlikely that proceeding with the complaint would lead to them applying for a CIFAS marker. Based on the limited info in your post, in your place I would also progress the complaint to its full extent, there's no expense involved on your part and only a bit of time and effort.

Thanks for your reply - this is the bit which confuses me and why I'm asking for advice. "Reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial crime has been committed" is more or less the same wording in the bank's T&Cs under which they closed my account. How can they possibly have reasonable grounds to believe I've carried out any illegal activity such as to immediately terminate my account, but not feel they have sufficient evidence to file a CIFAS marker? And yet I think surely if they did believe they had those grounds, they would have put a CIFAS marker against my name already? So I guess what I'm trying to find out is if anyone's ever heard of a bank filing a marker a few weeks or more after an account has been closed on the basis of perceived suspicion?

Same with freezing my account then unfreezing it. Doesn't restoring full access to my account and money for several days before closing it undermine their claimed reasons for closing?

The whole thing is awful. I'm sitting here knowing I haven't done anything wrong and having to worry that I might suddenly find one day any other accounts I have are closed and I'm blacklisted everywhere. I feel stupid now, for not realising earlier that paying cash in would look dodgy but also - why would I think that? From my perspective, all I was doing was paying my own money in to my own bank account, I didn't have any reason to think twice about that or ask myself what it might look like.

Please can I ask what was the outcome of this case?

I complained to the FOS, they upheld my complaint that Barclays should have given me 60 days notice to close my accounts and I was awarded some compensation. Barclays never tried to file a CIFAS marker against me, in fact they seem to have folded their hand as soon as the Ombudsman became involved, accepting that they had not treated me fairly.