Cifas marker help

eskbanker

London49 said:
...I supposedly have been falsely reporting a loss and had a falsely disclaiming transaction... 

My understanding of 'falsely disclaiming transaction' is that it's something they say you did rather than something you had - I interpreted it to mean that they're asserting that you'd denied liability for a transaction which they believe you'd authorised, i.e. falsely claiming back money you'd knowingly spent.  Were there any transactions on any of the six accounts after you reported the cards to be lost?

London49 said:

I got a letter from barclays which said a lot of nothing

Are you able and willing to share a redacted image of the letter?

SupaSava2000

After you’d lost your cards were there any, and did report any, unrecognised transactions on your accounts?

London49

SupaSava2000 said:

After you’d lost your cards were there any, and did report any, unrecognised transactions on your accounts?

No didn’t report anything only the fact I lost them and I wanted new ones 

London49

eskbanker said:

London49 said:
...I supposedly have been falsely reporting a loss and had a falsely disclaiming transaction... 

My understanding of 'falsely disclaiming transaction' is that it's something they say you did rather than something you had - I interpreted it to mean that they're asserting that you'd denied liability for a transaction which they believe you'd authorised, i.e. falsely claiming back money you'd knowingly spent.  Were there any transactions on any of the six accounts after you reported the cards to be lost?

London49 said:

I got a letter from barclays which said a lot of nothing

Are you able and willing to share a redacted image of the letter?

I can send you the letter by dm ? 

eskbanker

London49 said:

I can send you the letter by dm ? 

It seems that the letter is primarily addressing (and upholding) a complaint about the process of accessing the funds post-closure, rather than the bigger issue of the closure itself, although that is mentioned further on.

Their refusal to share the guidelines used to drive the closure decision misses the point, as they also go on to state that they're obliged to disclose "incidences such as this" to CIFAS, and presumably you made it clear to them that you were (and are) unaware of exactly what incidence they're referring to, i.e. you're needing information about specifically what event they're relaying to CIFAS, rather than the closure criteria themselves?

They also miss the point when blaming other banks for declining applications based on the CIFAS marker, asserting that they're not allowed to do so solely on that basis, but it's clear that such markers are serious so it's unsurprising that they have ramifications.

As they're obliged to do, they point out that you can escalate to FOS, but that's a long and slow process so won't help in the short term while you have to try to find another account - they don't explicitly state that the letter is their final response, so it may be worth going back to them and highlighting that, while you accept that they're entitled to close accounts, you believe that their assertions to CIFAS of fraudulent activity are prejudicial.

London49

Thank you. You make some pretty good points there. Is there anything else you feel I should add bank statements proof of funds wage slips ect ? 

eskbanker

London49 said:

Thank you. You make some pretty good points there. Is there anything else you feel I should add bank statements proof of funds wage slips ect ? 

I'm not sure what the relevance of any of those would be?  As I see it, the fundamental issue here is that they have formed the view that you have acted fraudulently and, as a result of doing so, have added a CIFAS marker that is effectively severe enough to prevent you from having access to banking facilities anywhere for the next six years.

If they have reason to believe that a crime has been committed then they're restricted in the extent to which they can discuss the matter with you, but it's Kafkaesque to put you in the position where you can't defend yourself against something when you don't know what it is, so it's hardly unreasonable to push them for some clues, whether that's by continuing the complaint (with FOS eventually) or submitting a SAR.

They seem confident in their position though - are you sure there wasn't anything untoward or suspicious after the card loss, that could have led them to assert that you were attempting to falsely claim reimbursement of transactions that you weren't entitled to?  Were the cards used at all after the loss?

London49

As soon as the cards were reported as lost them cards weren’t used again. I spoke to Barclays last night there going to send me all my statements through as I no longer have access to them. 

grumbler

eskbanker said:

London49 said:

Thank you. You make some pretty good points there. Is there anything else you feel I should add bank statements proof of funds wage slips ect ? 

If they have reason to believe that a crime has been committed then they're restricted in the extent to which they can discuss the matter with you

Why? Unless it's ML that for some stupid reason is exceptional and regulations explicitly restrict this, any crime can be discussed with a suspected criminal.

And these lost cards obviously have nothing to do with AML regulations.

eskbanker

grumbler said:

eskbanker said:

London49 said:

Thank you. You make some pretty good points there. Is there anything else you feel I should add bank statements proof of funds wage slips ect ? 

If they have reason to believe that a crime has been committed then they're restricted in the extent to which they can discuss the matter with you

Why? Unless it's ML that for some stupid reason is exceptional and regulations explicitly restrict this, any crime can be discussed with a suspected criminal.

And this lost cards obviously have nothing to do with AML regulations.

I'm thinking of the SAR disclosure exemptions relating to crime - the ICO even conveniently cites a pertinent example:

Example

A bank conducts an investigation into one of their customers for suspected financial fraud. During their investigation, the bank receives a subject access request for all of the personal data they hold from the customer in question. The bank decides that they will withhold information about the investigation, because it would be likely to prejudice the investigation as the individual may abscond or destroy evidence. However, the bank is able to provide other information in response to the request which would not prejudice the investigation (for example the individual’s account details and transactions).

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/right-of-access/what-other-exemptions-are-there/#exemption1