Ready, steady… save!
You don’t need a chart to join in. Here are 2 ways to record your savings:
1. Cross it off
Pop a chart into your first post. Saved an amount? Cross it out! Read more »
£0.01 £0.02 £0.03
2. Write it down
Skip the chart and add updates to your first post. Read more »
“Another +£3 saved today. Go me!”
Use +£ before each new saving so it counts towards your total.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
CIFAS identity-theft marker still unresolved after months — has anyone experienced this?
CIFAS identity-theft marker still unresolved after months — has anyone experienced this?
I’m looking for advice from anyone who has dealt with a CIFAS marker following identity theft.
In my case, a Lendable/Zable-related identity-theft dispute resulted in a CIFAS False Identity marker being recorded on 17 November 2025. I have spent months challenging the matter with the filing organisation and CIFAS, but the marker remains.
CIFAS says it considers the marker correctly filed and distinguishes between a False Identity marker and a separate victim-protection marker. However, that explanation has not resolved my situation or provided the practical outcome I need.
The consequences are serious. My intended business-premises purchase is at risk, my solicitors’ work has been paused, and my intended mortgage application remains unsubmitted while I consider the implications of proceeding.
I feel disgusted and deeply frustrated by how this has affected me. I feel sick to my stomach when I consider the months of uncertainty involved in trying to resolve a problem that began with identity theft.
I understand the importance of fraud prevention. My concern is whether victims receive meaningful scrutiny, transparency and an effective route to challenge a disputed marker.
I have escalated the dispute to the Financial Ombudsman Service and raised data-protection concerns with the Information Commissioner’s Office, but I have not yet obtained a final resolution.
Has anyone here successfully challenged a CIFAS False Identity marker after reporting identity theft? I would particularly appreciate hearing about the process, what evidence helped, and whether anyone managed to resolve the marker through CIFAS, the filing organisation or the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Comments
-
You had the advice on your Reddit post in UK Personal Finance - it lasts 13 months and will go in December and all your applications will go through with extra checks. The ID theft marker will not be removed
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
CIFAS says it considers the marker correctly filed and distinguishes between a False Identity marker and a separate victim-protection marker. However, that explanation has not resolved my situation or provided the practical outcome I need.
My understanding is that they are different things, so to what extent are you able to validate exactly which is in place?
a Lendable/Zable-related identity-theft dispute resulted in a CIFAS False Identity marker being recorded
In what way did identity theft become a dispute, and what's the status of the dispute with these organisations, especially with regard to their commitments re CIFAS markers?
0 -
I believe a "False Identity" marker is a "perpetrator" marker rather than a "victim" marker, which indicates that the institution either believes that the OP commited fraud via providing a false identity or doesn't know the difference between "False Identity" and "Victim of Impersonation" marker.
I don't think anyone can help the OP without knowing what happened in the first place, what was said to the organisation that filed it and what their response was. Going after CIFAS is a bit of a waste of time here. They're much like the CRAs and are not responsible for what they are told by the organisations that report to them (which makes a lot of sense really.)0 -
If you read the topic fully (and looking at the Reddit thread, they added a bit more on that), OP was a victim of identity theft but now has the marker
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Well with respect, Reddit is a dumpster fire (no pun intended) and I'm not going to Google the OP just to see a thread on another site.
I also did read the OP. There is zero context to this other than they have claimed to be a victim, so what's the story? And why is Lendable claiming they are instead the perpetrator? What has the OP said to them in response and what has their response been?
Clearly we know the very general outline which is
1. OP is accused of being a fraudster
2. OP disputes this
3. Accuser isn't having any of it
4. OP takes it to CIFAS
5. CIFAS say "we just record what we're told bro"
6. OP goes to FOS
But that's not very helpful.0 -
I saw the post on Reddit before OP posted here, it's a lot less censored than here!
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
1 -
They didn't bother posting anything other than the OP on Reddit - same as here… What a waste of people's time…
0 -
There is other info on that thread unless they edited it - hence it's clear they were a victim of it
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 456.2K Spending & Discounts
- 248.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 606K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 179K Life & Family
- 263.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards