Synectics Solutions marker - Ombudsman ruled with LBG

ryan92

Hey everyone.
Just looking to get some thoughts and advice on this complaint I've had ongoing with the ombudsman for some time now that I had an outcome with yesterday.

To give a bit of context, I had a CIFAS marker incorrectly added against me in 2019 which resulted in a wave of account closures. My LBG accounts at the time were all closed with 60 days notice and my online banking was suspended immediately. 

I raised this CIFAS marker through the ombudsman and due to COVID the ruling was delayed substantially and the outcome was delivered in  February 2021 when NewDay were instructed to remove the CIFAS marker which was done.

In 2023 I entered into a protected Trust Deed and I was advised to open a new account with a bank I didn't have any previous debts with. This primarily left LBG, Natwest/RBS and Santander as ideally I needed a bank with local presence. I applied for an Bank of Scotland Basic account which was opened and then a few days later closed. I raised a complaint about this and was told I didn't pass secondary checks which I didn't believe was applicable for basic bank accounts unless it was very limited criteria. They also confirmed that it was nothing to do with a CIFAS marker. Natwest/RBS wouldn't offer me an account either and neither would Santander.

For around a year I was limited to e-money accounts with no FSCS protection or a Co-Op account so in 2024 I decided to try again to get a high street bank listed above and I had no luck again. I raised the RBS account closure through the ombudsman service and they provided me with generic information about how a bank has the right to decline and then quoted section 25 of the Payment Account Regulations - which primarily appeared to be fraud related.

As it had been a good year or so since I tried to get a Bank of Scotland account, I tried again in 2024 and was offered an account but it was closed days later. I raised this through them and was told they were within their rights and that I didn't pass their checks. At this point, I accepted I would be unlikely to bank with them in future and drew a line under them at this point.

I then tried Santander who declined me back in 2023 and I was succesful in opening a basic bank account only for it to be closed 3 days later. When I raised this through Santander, they confirmed it was a marker placed on Synectics Solutions which at this point I'd never heard of. I raised a SAR and indeed, there was 'Refer' marker placed on me in 2021 by LBG which was 2 months after my CIFAS marker was removed. The application to LBG in 2024 was marked as 'Clear' and had all the exact same information submitted to Synectics as the application in 2021 which was marked as 'Refer'. I went back to Santander and provided this context and provided a clear link between the 'Refer' applications and then the subsequent application made with the same details marked as clear. They confirmed while the marker was there, they wouldn't offer me an account however if this was removed, I would be more than welcome to bank with them.

It was at this point I went back to LBG and provided the new information I was made aware of. At no point did they advise they registered any information on Synectics when I mentioned CIFAS previously - just that the refusal of the account was nothing to do with a CIFAS marker. They could have directed me to check Synectics upon reflection.

I took this new evidence I had obtained to RBS and provided them with the CIFAS ruling in 2019 alongside the Synectics Data showing 'Refer' and then 'Clear'. They decided to overturn their decision and update their records and allowed me to open a basic bank account which I am now using today with no problems.

I raised the complaint to Bank of Scotland again reiterating that the 'Refer' markers were in error and clearly as a result of the CIFAS marker possibly still being active at the time of my application to them. They responded by not upholding my complaint and advised me that if I was being declined from other banks to take it up with them as the marker was for internal use only. This goes against what Santander had advised me as being the only reason the accounts were being closed.

I provided all this evidence above to the Ombudsman alongside my clear SARs from CIFAS, National Hunter and Synectics Solutions (apart from the refer marker in 2021). They have responded stating the Payment Account Regulations section 25 again and advised they wouldn't be asking Bank of Scotland to remove the marker.

What I did also find really frustrating during this process was that I was given very clear deadlines to adhere to or the complaint would be closed under their rules. BoS were given a deadline of the 21st July to submit their evidence which was missed. The investigator gave them a 2 week extension and advised that if their evidence wasn't received, they would proceed based on what they had. This 2 week extension was missed again and I was advised they were given a further week to provide their evidence. This was then submitted on the 27th August which was the day the deadline was set for.

I just feel so bogged down in all of this and right now it's more a matter of principle more than anything else. The sheer difficulty I've had in trying to get a basic bank account from an institution that isn't on my trust deed and being constantly rejected when there has been absolutely no wrongdoing on my part has been exhausting. I genuinely thought that once that CIFAS marker was removed in 2021 my issues would be all over. Yet 4 years on here I am.

I'm really sorry for the long winded post but I hope i've presented it clear enough and would really appreciate any guidance/opinions on this one. Happy to keep this updated and answer any questions etc if needed!

Nebulous2

I've no idea where you stand - but here are a couple of thoughts. 

Was it an actual ombudsman ruling? Issues are referred at a lower level, with a less qualified individual first, and then are referred to the ombudsman if you appeal. The ombudsman can and regularly does over-rule initial findings. If you haven't exhausted their process, you should stick with it. 

Secondly - this should probably be moved to the credit files forum. Credit file & ratings — MoneySavingExpert Forum

They have some very experienced people who post on issues related to credit files. You aren't allowed to double post the same issue, but you could ask a mod to move it. 

Good luck with it anyway.... 

ryan92

It was only findings by an investigator at this stage so I've asked for it to be escalated further to an ombudsman.
I will of course keep the thread updated with the outcome and any progress etc.

WillPS

ryan92 said:

I raised the complaint to Bank of Scotland again reiterating that the 'Refer' markers were in error and clearly as a result of the CIFAS marker possibly still being active at the time of my application to them. They responded by not upholding my complaint and advised me that if I was being declined from other banks to take it up with them as the marker was for internal use only. This goes against what Santander had advised me as being the only reason the accounts were being closed.

Bank of Scotland need to be challenged on this. They seem to be under the impression that a marker which they have placed with an external agency is only visible to them, which is provably not the case.

Olenna

This could probably also be taken up with the ICO as LBG / BOS are effectively agreeing that an 'in-house' marker - which probably have a right to place shouldn't be seen externally but appears to have done so via them directly or their fraud/CRA agents. That would seem not to be GDPR compliant. 

ryan92

Olenna said:

This could probably also be taken up with the ICO as LBG / BOS are effectively agreeing that an 'in-house' marker - which probably have a right to place shouldn't be seen externally but appears to have done so via them directly or their fraud/CRA agents. That would seem not to be GDPR compliant. 

That's a really interesting point and one I didn't think of actually!
Am I best waiting for an ombudsman to pick this case up or raise this back with LBG and try their complaints channel again? I'm just keen to get this over and done with in all honesty.