We are increasingly approached by individuals who have been adversely affected by a CIFAS marker and want advice on how to remove this.
In some scenarios, the CIFAS marker against the individual will have been added wrongly, and being in this unfair situation can have a hugely detrimental effect due to the wide-ranging, complex and adverse consequences for the individual affected.
In a previous blog we examined what a CIFAS marker is and how to try and get it removed.
In summary, a complaint can be made to the financial institution which requested that the CIFAS marker be added, and then, if necessary, a complaint against CIFAS itself.
However, what can you do if both these steps are unsuccessful?
Lodging a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service
If you have been unsuccessful with the above steps, you can consider making a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”).
It is important to note that there are strict timeframes involved and a FOS complaint must be lodged within six months of the final decision of the relevant bank.
What is the Financial Ombudsman Service?
The FOS is an official body established by parliament to settle disputes between regulated financial companies and their customers. The FOS has legal power to adjudicate on individuals’ complaint. This complaint could arise in circumstances when an individual feels that a financial institution has added a CIFAS marker in their name.
What is the process to lodge a complaint?
Once the relevant bank has issued its final decision on your complaint, and provided this decision was issued within the last six months, a complaint to the FOS can now be made by way of their online complaint form.
A FOS complaint can be bolstered by providing a detailed statement of complaint (essentially setting out the background to the complaint), accompanied by relevant evidence (including relevant correspondence and/or decisions).
A FOS complaint can also be strengthened by a thorough application of the specific circumstances of the case to the specific relevant CIFAS criteria, concluding that the relevant bank was wrong to impose the CIFAS marker.
Has the FOS previously adjudicated on cases involving the imposition of a CIFAS marker?
Yes, it is clear from a review of the FOS’s published decisions that not only have they adjudicated on cases involving the imposition of a CIFAS marker, but the FOS have, in the right circumstances, been willing to recommend that a bank remove a CIFAS marker against an individual.
These published decisions reveal that some of the issues that the FOS has taken into consideration when investigating a bank’s decision to request a CIFAS marker against an individual include:
That the relevant bank needed to have more than just a suspicion or concern, but show that they had reasonable grounds to believe that fraud or a financial crime has been committed.
Whether the relevant bank had investigated the matter first and given the customer the opportunity to explain their conduct before filing the CIFAS.
Whether the relevant bank had given the customer time to respond before any submission to CIFAS was made.
NAVIGATING FINANCIAL INSTITUTION-RELATED CHALLENGES
Adverse Information on Compliance Databases
We are also being increasingly approached by individuals who feel that incorrect and/or inaccurate data about them stored in compliance databases is having an adverse effect on their relationship with financial institutions and are facing subsequent issues, such as bank accounts being closed and difficulties in opening a bank account.
We have also written a serious of blogs on a basic overview of the main functions of compliance databases like World-Check and how you can correct information about yourself on such databases?
Bank Account closures or “de-banking”
Finally, we are increasingly being approached by individuals who have been “de-banked”.
We have previously written about how other issues individuals may face, including account closures, are not limited to political figures in the UK, and affect many thousands of lawful individual and business customers every year. These cases have exposed the difficult balance many financial institutions and their individual and business customers must navigate to gain and maintain access to basic banking services.
To assist those whose accounts have been closed, Gherson’s financial crime, investigations and regulatory team have previously written blogs titled
“Why has my bank account been closed”
“Why has my business bank account been closed?”
“140,000 SMEs “de-banked” last year – why could I have been de-banked?”
“What are the proposed new laws aimed at preventing de-banking?”
“Why the proposed new laws to try and prevent de-banking to not go far enough”.
HOW GHERSON CAN ASSIST
Gherson’s regulatory, white-collar and investigations team are highly experienced in providing assistance on what you can do if your bank freezes or closes your account. This includes assisting you in submitting a request under data protection legislation, otherwise known as a Data Subject Access Request, to ascertain what information banks and other financial institutions may be holding on you and their decision making, and then analysing the response and assisting with any appropriate challenge.
If you have any questions arising from this blog, please do not hesitate to contact us for advice; send us an email at enquiries@gherson.co.uk or, alternatively, follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn to stay up to date with the latest developments.
The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position. Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog. For formal advice on the current law please do not hesitate to contact Gherson. Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.
©Gherson 2024