Cifas marker help

London49

eskbanker said:

London49 said:

Hi All so today I received my SAR back. The reason they’ve placed the marker is due to me match betting and braking the  T & Cs of the betting companies which they believe is misuse of facility  there end and warrants  the Cifas’s marker. 

From everything I can see online matched betting is completely legal in the uk

What would be the best place to go next do I go to the Fos have I got a leg to stand on? 

My understanding of the 'misuse of facility' CIFAS marker is that it relates specifically to accounts being opened for fraudulent purposes, and I can't see how your (legal) conduct meets that fairly high bar, even though opening so many accounts could be described as 'misuse' in a looser vernacular sense.

It also seems to conflict with the CIFAS data about "falsely reporting a loss" and "falsely disclaiming transaction"?

However, the comment about breaking the Ts & Cs of the betting companies is odd, unless one or more of them have accused you of fraudulent conduct to the extent of contacting your bank - you might even need to submit SARs in that direction too....

It does seem likely that you'll need to involve FOS but have you reached the end of the road with your complaint against Barclays, in terms of obtaining their final response?

Yeah there’s no mention there of reporting a loss 

will have a look at getting SARS from them as well.

Yes no more contact about this with Barclays.

while googling I found some articles that state Cifas markers can last up to six years, what are the chances of them being removed before this time? How will I find out if it has been removed or not? 

eskbanker

London49 said:

eskbanker said:

London49 said:

Hi All so today I received my SAR back. The reason they’ve placed the marker is due to me match betting and braking the  T & Cs of the betting companies which they believe is misuse of facility  there end and warrants  the Cifas’s marker. 

From everything I can see online matched betting is completely legal in the uk

What would be the best place to go next do I go to the Fos have I got a leg to stand on? 

My understanding of the 'misuse of facility' CIFAS marker is that it relates specifically to accounts being opened for fraudulent purposes, and I can't see how your (legal) conduct meets that fairly high bar, even though opening so many accounts could be described as 'misuse' in a looser vernacular sense.

It also seems to conflict with the CIFAS data about "falsely reporting a loss" and "falsely disclaiming transaction"?

However, the comment about breaking the Ts & Cs of the betting companies is odd, unless one or more of them have accused you of fraudulent conduct to the extent of contacting your bank - you might even need to submit SARs in that direction too....

It does seem likely that you'll need to involve FOS but have you reached the end of the road with your complaint against Barclays, in terms of obtaining their final response?

Yeah there’s no mention there of reporting a loss 

will have a look at getting SARS from them as well.

Yes no more contact about this with Barclays.

while googling I found some articles that state Cifas markers can last up to six years, what are the chances of them being removed before this time? How will I find out if it has been removed or not? 

Yes, CIFAS markers like this are on record for six years, and, although CIFAS have their own appeals process, you're really reliant on convincing Barclays to remove it - now that you've received the SAR data back from Barclays you could/should go back to the department handling your complaint and emphasise that your conduct is in no way fraudulent and therefore it's both inappropriate and damaging for them to effectively accuse you of that via CIFAS.

However, it does sound like it'll need FOS escalation to get them to see sense, which is a slow process....

born_again

London49 said:

Hi All so today I received my SAR back. The reason they’ve placed the marker is due to me match betting and braking the  T & Cs of the betting companies which they believe is misuse of facility  there end and warrants  the Cifas’s marker. 

From everything I can see online matched betting is completely legal in the uk

What would be the best place to go next do I go to the Fos have I got a leg to stand on? 

 

I wonder if this relates to opening 6 separate accounts & are these all with the same betting company? As most gambling will only allow one account per customer.

This will be something that Barclays will most likely have been in discussion with the gambling co's on at a guess. I know we have contacts at them & will discuss accounts that are not as would be liked.

eskbanker

born_again said:

London49 said:

Hi All so today I received my SAR back. The reason they’ve placed the marker is due to me match betting and braking the  T & Cs of the betting companies which they believe is misuse of facility  there end and warrants  the Cifas’s marker. 

From everything I can see online matched betting is completely legal in the uk

What would be the best place to go next do I go to the Fos have I got a leg to stand on? 

I wonder if this relates to opening 6 separate accounts & are these all with the same betting company? As most gambling will only allow one account per customer.

This will be something that Barclays will most likely have been in discussion with the gambling co's on at a guess. I know we have contacts at them & will discuss accounts that are not as would be liked.

But of course there's a big difference between not 'liking' account conduct and it/them actually breaching Ts & Cs either of the bank or the gambling company, and even from there it's unlikely to be a given that the bank account(s) should be closed, especially if the bank's terms haven't been breached.

However, all of that falls well short of the threshold for accusing someone of illegal or unlawful fraudulent activity, to the extent of placing a CIFAS marker that effectively precludes access to mainstream financial services for six years.

Also, in the absence of any evidence of crime, I suspect that the ICO would take a dim view of banks discussing customer accounts with third parties....

ian1246

You have had a lot of good advice, however I think someone needs to suggest the other side - that the CIFAS marker *may* be justified.

People think Fraud is a complex matter involving large sums of money. It can infact be the simplest thing - Fraud by misrepresentation is where a person dishonestly makes a false statement with the intention to either make a gain for themselves or another, or intends to cause a loss to another or expose that other to the risk of a loss.

I have never done matched betting myself, or indeed placed a online bet - when you place a bet, do you have to agree to any terms & conditions, declaring that this is the only bet you have placed for that transaction (on their site or any other)? Or any other T & C to similar affect? 

If so and you've agreed to them knowing it's false, then you will infact have committed fraud the moment you accepted the Terms & Conditions - since you'll have made a false representation, intending to make a gain for yourself (& loss to them) - it doesn't matter if you subsequently actually make a gain/cause a loss - its about the intent, not the eventual outcome.

At which point, given you've opened those 6 accounts for the specific purpose of managing your matched bets, the CIFAS marker absolutely would be justified.

Again - I m not saying you have committed Fraud, I m saying its possible you have - it depends what you have declared/ agreed to with placing the online betting sites - any dishonesty on your part, however, is likely to constitute a misrepresentation (by you) upon which the betting company will have relied to enter into business with you.

If your going to fight the CIFAS  markers, I would suggest going through the betting sites with a fine tooth comb is a good starting point.

However I fear you probably will have fallen foul somewhere along the line (ask yourself, would the sites have agreed to the bet if you'd told them about your other matched bets? The answer is probably no - and you can bet their T'&C's will probably cover such scenario's) at which point, it will be Fraud.

I bring this up not to be harsh or horrible - but because if the cause of the CIFAS marker is as you suspect, the above is what the bank will likely argue.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

GingerTim

ian1246 said:

You have had a lot of good advice, however I think someone needs to suggest the other side - that the CIFAS marker *may* be justified.

People think Fraud is a complex matter involving large sums of money. It can infact be the simplest thing - Fraud by misrepresentation is where a person dishonestly makes a false statement with the intention to either make a gain for themselves or another, or intends to cause a loss to another or expose that other to the risk of a loss.

I have never done matched betting myself, or indeed placed a online bet - when you place a bet, do you have to agree to any terms & conditions, declaring that this is the only bet you have placed for that transaction (on their site or any other)? Or any other T & C to similar affect? 

If so and you've agreed to them knowing it's false, then you will infact have committed fraud the moment you accepted the Terms & Conditions - since you'll have made a false representation, intending to make a gain for yourself (& loss to them) - it doesn't matter if you subsequently actually make a gain/cause a loss - its about the intent, not the eventual outcome.

At which point, given you've opened those 6 accounts for the specific purpose of managing your matched bets, the CIFAS marker absolutely would be justified.

Again - I m not saying you have committed Fraud, I m saying its possible you have - it depends what you have declared/ agreed to with placing the online betting sites - any dishonesty on your part, however, is likely to constitute a misrepresentation (by you) upon which the betting company will have relied to enter into business with you.

If your going to fight the CIFAS  markers, I would suggest going through the betting sites with a fine tooth comb is a good starting point.

However I fear you probably will have fallen foul somewhere along the line (ask yourself, would the sites have agreed to the bet if you'd told them about your other matched bets? The answer is probably no - and you can bet their T'&C's will probably cover such scenario's) at which point, it will be Fraud.

I bring this up not to be harsh or horrible - but because if the cause of the CIFAS marker is as you suspect, the above is what the bank will likely argue.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

While I take the point on this, we'd be seeing a lot more matched bettors being CIFASed if the above were the case.

ian1246

GingerTim said:

ian1246 said:

You have had a lot of good advice, however I think someone needs to suggest the other side - that the CIFAS marker *may* be justified.

People think Fraud is a complex matter involving large sums of money. It can infact be the simplest thing - Fraud by misrepresentation is where a person dishonestly makes a false statement with the intention to either make a gain for themselves or another, or intends to cause a loss to another or expose that other to the risk of a loss.

I have never done matched betting myself, or indeed placed a online bet - when you place a bet, do you have to agree to any terms & conditions, declaring that this is the only bet you have placed for that transaction (on their site or any other)? Or any other T & C to similar affect? 

If so and you've agreed to them knowing it's false, then you will infact have committed fraud the moment you accepted the Terms & Conditions - since you'll have made a false representation, intending to make a gain for yourself (& loss to them) - it doesn't matter if you subsequently actually make a gain/cause a loss - its about the intent, not the eventual outcome.

At which point, given you've opened those 6 accounts for the specific purpose of managing your matched bets, the CIFAS marker absolutely would be justified.

Again - I m not saying you have committed Fraud, I m saying its possible you have - it depends what you have declared/ agreed to with placing the online betting sites - any dishonesty on your part, however, is likely to constitute a misrepresentation (by you) upon which the betting company will have relied to enter into business with you.

If your going to fight the CIFAS  markers, I would suggest going through the betting sites with a fine tooth comb is a good starting point.

However I fear you probably will have fallen foul somewhere along the line (ask yourself, would the sites have agreed to the bet if you'd told them about your other matched bets? The answer is probably no - and you can bet their T'&C's will probably cover such scenario's) at which point, it will be Fraud.

I bring this up not to be harsh or horrible - but because if the cause of the CIFAS marker is as you suspect, the above is what the bank will likely argue.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

While I take the point on this, we'd be seeing a lot more matched bettors being CIFASed if the above were the case.

You could well be right, on the other hand how many accounts used for matched betting are put in the unfortunate position of having the banks take a deeper look due to something fishy going on, like the account holder loosing 6 seperate bank cards in a single day? 

It could be that the accounts were flagged for a seperate reason (I.e. lost cards), prompting the bank to look into the accounts which subsequently has unearthed the seperate, but nonetheless likely fraudulent activity, leading to the CIFAS marker. 

Regardless, matched betting is likely to be fraudulent given it likely involves misleading/lieing to the betting companies for the purposes of a gain of the matched better - if the banks come across it, they will have no discretion to ignore it.

The point I guess i'm getting at, is if there is fraudulent activity on the accounts, regardless of how or the reason the bank has eventually reached that conclusion, its likely if the Op appeals it and takes it to the FCA, that the banks CIFAS marker will be upheld since the accounts likely *have* been used for fraudulent activity.

The only way around it is the Op hasn't acted fraudulently - which very much depends on the conditions he agreed to with the betting companies, hence the need to check the terms and conditions.

Nasqueron

ian1246 said:

GingerTim said:

ian1246 said:

You have had a lot of good advice, however I think someone needs to suggest the other side - that the CIFAS marker *may* be justified.

People think Fraud is a complex matter involving large sums of money. It can infact be the simplest thing - Fraud by misrepresentation is where a person dishonestly makes a false statement with the intention to either make a gain for themselves or another, or intends to cause a loss to another or expose that other to the risk of a loss.

I have never done matched betting myself, or indeed placed a online bet - when you place a bet, do you have to agree to any terms & conditions, declaring that this is the only bet you have placed for that transaction (on their site or any other)? Or any other T & C to similar affect? 

If so and you've agreed to them knowing it's false, then you will infact have committed fraud the moment you accepted the Terms & Conditions - since you'll have made a false representation, intending to make a gain for yourself (& loss to them) - it doesn't matter if you subsequently actually make a gain/cause a loss - its about the intent, not the eventual outcome.

At which point, given you've opened those 6 accounts for the specific purpose of managing your matched bets, the CIFAS marker absolutely would be justified.

Again - I m not saying you have committed Fraud, I m saying its possible you have - it depends what you have declared/ agreed to with placing the online betting sites - any dishonesty on your part, however, is likely to constitute a misrepresentation (by you) upon which the betting company will have relied to enter into business with you.

If your going to fight the CIFAS  markers, I would suggest going through the betting sites with a fine tooth comb is a good starting point.

However I fear you probably will have fallen foul somewhere along the line (ask yourself, would the sites have agreed to the bet if you'd told them about your other matched bets? The answer is probably no - and you can bet their T'&C's will probably cover such scenario's) at which point, it will be Fraud.

I bring this up not to be harsh or horrible - but because if the cause of the CIFAS marker is as you suspect, the above is what the bank will likely argue.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

While I take the point on this, we'd be seeing a lot more matched bettors being CIFASed if the above were the case.

You could well be right, on the other hand how many accounts used for matched betting are put in the unfortunate position of having the banks take a deeper look due to something fishy going on, like the account holder loosing 6 seperate bank cards in a single day? 

It could be that the accounts were flagged for a seperate reason (I.e. lost cards), prompting the bank to look into the accounts which subsequently has unearthed the seperate, but nonetheless likely fraudulent activity, leading to the CIFAS marker. 

Regardless, matched betting is likely to be fraudulent given it likely involves misleading/lieing to the betting companies for the purposes of a gain of the matched better - if the banks come across it, they will have no discretion to ignore it.

The point I guess i'm getting at, is if there is fraudulent activity on the accounts, regardless of how or the reason the bank has eventually reached that conclusion, its likely if the Op appeals it and takes it to the FCA, that the banks CIFAS marker will be upheld since the accounts likely *have* been used for fraudulent activity.

The only way around it is the Op hasn't acted fraudulently - which very much depends on the conditions he agreed to with the betting companies, hence the need to check the terms and conditions.

Betting companies want your money and ideally, want you to lose. You can have as many bets as you like on each transaction, even with different firms, even betting against yourself.

As an example, a long odds bet on Corbyn, Abbot and Galloway all winning their seats in the next election, with another bet that only 2 of them will and a bet all 3 will lose - obviously not all can come true so you are betting against yourself. There is nothing illegal about matched betting, the CIFAS will be from the OP doing this weird thing of 6 different account all for different betting which has spooked someone at the bank because it's so unusual

MattMattMattUK

OP, can you post the detail of the SAR with your personal information redacted? I am wondering if there is something that might give us a better idea reading the whole thing.

Bradden

London49 said:

So I opened 6 Barclays basic accounts to do some matched betting I wanted a different account for each bet just so I knew what I was making. Would this be the reason for the marker ?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that the OP indicated they opened multiple "basic" accounts. I thought there was a restriction of having multiple basic accounts which may have caused the issue.