Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • BTEE
    • By BTEE 6th Mar 18, 2:06 PM
    • 2Posts
    • 0Thanks
    BTEE
    Unjustified CIFAS Warning
    • #1
    • 6th Mar 18, 2:06 PM
    Unjustified CIFAS Warning 6th Mar 18 at 2:06 PM
    I got rejected for a mortgage application in 2015 by Bank of Ireland with no explanation (apparently they dont have to give one). Due to personal reasons I did not try for another mortgage until April last year.

    I applied, via a broker, to a different lendor who rejected my application on the basis of a CIFAS warning against my name.

    After 10months of correspondence, the Bank of Ireland logged the CIFAS warning against me as I supposedly submitted falsified bank statements. This is not the case- I supplied CIFAS with the statements i give to my broker and they were not falsified.

    BOI refuse to speak to me or prove to me what fraudulent activity i have done.

    I have gone to the financial ombudsman, and they cannot do anything for me as apparently when I submitted my application to BOI I agreed to there terms which allowed them to log such concerns with CIFAS without providing any information.

    I have pleaded with CIFAS to look into this, and submitted to them all the relevant paper work, but they confirmed this morning they will not be removing the concern.

    I have already been rejected for one mortgage, Im 31 years of age and have not done anything wrong.

    I am faced with three organizations, none of which will speak to me or show me what I have done wrong.
    It has taken me 10months to get to this stage and now i am completely stuck. What do I do next?
Page 1
    • liviboy
    • By liviboy 6th Mar 18, 2:24 PM
    • 423 Posts
    • 159 Thanks
    liviboy
    • #2
    • 6th Mar 18, 2:24 PM
    • #2
    • 6th Mar 18, 2:24 PM
    I thought CIFAS markers were for your protection? As in a lender wouldn't automatically approve an application but contact you first to ensure it was in fact you that made the application?

    My BIL for example has suffered some identity fraud and he currently has a CIFAS marker in his name "for his protection". Since it was put on he's received a number of letters from credit companies telling him they've stopped the application but if it was him to contact them.
    • zx81
    • By zx81 6th Mar 18, 2:32 PM
    • 17,280 Posts
    • 18,390 Thanks
    zx81
    • #3
    • 6th Mar 18, 2:32 PM
    • #3
    • 6th Mar 18, 2:32 PM
    There are many types of CIFA markers - including those that advise lenders that you may be a victim of identity fraud and those that advise you have committed fraud yourself.
    • BTEE
    • By BTEE 6th Mar 18, 2:40 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    BTEE
    • #4
    • 6th Mar 18, 2:40 PM
    • #4
    • 6th Mar 18, 2:40 PM
    Hi Liviboy,

    I appreciate measures put in place to protect people but the marker against my name states I have BEEN fraudulent which is untrue. That is why I was rejected for a mortgage in April last year.

    As per zx81 comment, my marker says I have committed fraud myself- which is untrue. This is what I am trying to fix but at a loss as to how?
    • tenchy
    • By tenchy 6th Mar 18, 3:04 PM
    • 360 Posts
    • 113 Thanks
    tenchy
    • #5
    • 6th Mar 18, 3:04 PM
    • #5
    • 6th Mar 18, 3:04 PM
    CIFAS is a 'guilty until proven innocent' system.


    Ultimately you may have to threaten BoI with legal action if they don't state their case against you, with evidence. The agreed term you mention whereby they can blacklist you without having to provide evidence would seem manifestly unfair. Again, seek legal advice.
    • brianposter
    • By brianposter 6th Mar 18, 3:29 PM
    • 203 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    brianposter
    • #6
    • 6th Mar 18, 3:29 PM
    • #6
    • 6th Mar 18, 3:29 PM
    Sounds like a good one for The Guardian.

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/mar/02/edf-smart-meter-install-bills
    • molerat
    • By molerat 6th Mar 18, 6:33 PM
    • 18,802 Posts
    • 12,982 Thanks
    molerat
    • #7
    • 6th Mar 18, 6:33 PM
    • #7
    • 6th Mar 18, 6:33 PM
    This is not the case- I supplied CIFAS with the statements i give to my broker and they were not falsified
    Originally posted by BTEE
    Have you seen a hard copy of exactly what the broker submitted ?
    www.helpforheroes.org.uk/donations.html
    • Candyapple
    • By Candyapple 7th Mar 18, 12:18 PM
    • 2,909 Posts
    • 2,246 Thanks
    Candyapple
    • #8
    • 7th Mar 18, 12:18 PM
    • #8
    • 7th Mar 18, 12:18 PM
    CIFAS Categories Explained

    0 - Protective Registration - Recorded at the request of the person named.
    1 - False Identity Fraud - Use of a false name with an address.
    2 - Victim of Impersonation - Use, by another person, of this name and/or address.
    3 - Application Fraud (Facility Granted) - Use of name reasonably believed to be genuine, but with one or more material falsehoods in personal details or other relevant information -; the facility was granted.
    4 - Application Fraud (Facility Refused) - Use of a name reasonably believed to be genuine, but with one or more material falsehoods in personal details or other relevant information -; the facility was refused.
    5 - Conversion - Conversion (disposal or sale) of goods (to which the hirer/buyer does not have title) under a hire purchase, conditional sale, contract hire, leasing or rental agreement.
    6 - First Party Fraud - Opening an account or other facility for a fraudulent purpose, or the fraudulent misuse of an account or facility.
    7 - Aiding & Abetting - Aiding, abetting or assisting, or conspiring with, another or others to fraudulently procure credit, or other facilities, or hire products or services.
    8 - Insurance Claims Fraud - The making of a claim(s) under one or more insurance policy (ies) with one or more material falsehoods or by presenting a false or forged document.


    Sounds like you've been given a Cat4?

    As tenchy stated, you need to speak to a solicitor and initiate legal action against BoI as they are the only ones who can remove the marker - not CIFAS themselves.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Credit Cards, Loans, Credit Files & Ratings boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com
    • letitbe90
    • By letitbe90 7th Mar 18, 3:51 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    letitbe90
    • #9
    • 7th Mar 18, 3:51 PM
    • #9
    • 7th Mar 18, 3:51 PM
    Although not impossible, it is unlikely they would falsely accuse you of fraud, it doesn't benefit them in any way - and they only reported you because they have a regulatory obligation to do so when they see certain information.

    As this is an online forum and you are anonymous, could you if at all possible, go back and think what potentially was a bit dodgy - because 99.9%+ of the time something was but people deny it (source: working in Banking). Is there anything your broker or you did in your application that you can remember. If you can be honest about this, we could look at steps to appeal.

    If however you are adamant you are the 0.1% who definitely was a victim of a clerical error or a document switch or otherwise - as people have suggested previously, you may need to take legal steps.
    • tenchy
    • By tenchy 7th Mar 18, 4:17 PM
    • 360 Posts
    • 113 Thanks
    tenchy
    Although not impossible, it is unlikely they would falsely accuse you of fraud, it doesn't benefit them in any way - and they only reported you because they have a regulatory obligation to do so when they see certain information.

    As this is an online forum and you are anonymous, could you if at all possible, go back and think what potentially was a bit dodgy - because 99.9%+ of the time something was but people deny it (source: working in Banking). Is there anything your broker or you did in your application that you can remember. If you can be honest about this, we could look at steps to appeal.

    If however you are adamant you are the 0.1% who definitely was a victim of a clerical error or a document switch or otherwise - as people have suggested previously, you may need to take legal steps.
    Originally posted by letitbe90

    I think the problem here is that you're conflating "something dodgy" with proven fraud. The former could be just about anything and is highly subjective. Why is there not a 'proven fraud' marker on CIFAS (unless cats 5-8 require proof)? The problems appear to be with categories 3 and 4, where this largely unregulated organisation is generously allowing itself to post these categories on the strength of 'reasonable belief'.
    • camelot1971
    • By camelot1971 7th Mar 18, 7:44 PM
    • 815 Posts
    • 1,222 Thanks
    camelot1971
    I'd imagine 6 and 7 are as a result of a criminal investigation by the police. The rest can be proven fairly easy by the bank, if necessary.

    Unfortunately people do commit fraud and do lie on application forms. As mentioned, it could be an honest mistake but it's not in the banks interest to randomly apply CIFAS markers as if they get it wrong FOS won't be happy.
    • letitbe90
    • By letitbe90 8th Mar 18, 2:49 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    letitbe90
    I think the problem here is that you're conflating "something dodgy" with proven fraud. The former could be just about anything and is highly subjective. Why is there not a 'proven fraud' marker on CIFAS (unless cats 5-8 require proof)? The problems appear to be with categories 3 and 4, where this largely unregulated organisation is generously allowing itself to post these categories on the strength of 'reasonable belief'.
    Originally posted by tenchy
    Of course it is highly subjective, they have controls in place to try ascertain things to a reasonable degree - very little can be proven 100% unless you do a lengthy investigation. A financial organisation is already losing money by refusing business, it doesn't want to lose more money in ongoing investigations.

    Anyway, I think my post was to ascertain whether, there was any doctoring of statements done, false documents or otherwise, be it himself or the broker. Unfortunately, these are not rare occurances in the mortgage world where people are very desperate and go by word of mouth of family and friends of how they got away with it.
    • Thrugelmir
    • By Thrugelmir 9th Mar 18, 10:33 PM
    • 58,946 Posts
    • 52,274 Thanks
    Thrugelmir
    Of course it is highly subjective, they have controls in place to try ascertain things to a reasonable degree - very little can be proven 100% unless you do a lengthy investigation. A financial organisation is already losing money by refusing business, it doesn't want to lose more money in ongoing investigations.

    Anyway, I think my post was to ascertain whether, there was any doctoring of statements done, false documents or otherwise, be it himself or the broker. Unfortunately, these are not rare occurances in the mortgage world where people are very desperate and go by word of mouth of family and friends of how they got away with it.
    Originally posted by letitbe90
    Possible that discrepancies between applications were noted by National Hunter as part of the initial checking process.
    Financial disasters happen when the last person who can remember what went wrong last time has left the building.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

529Posts Today

5,990Users online

Martin's Twitter