When a CIFAS marker is filed against someone, the burden of proof rests firmly on the organisation that recorded it. It is not for the individual to prove their innocence, but for the bank, lender, or insurer to justify why the marker was applied.
This principle comes from both the CIFAS Handbook and wider data protection law.
Why the Burden is on the Bank #
- CIFAS Principles
Members must only file cases where there is clear, relevant, and rigorous evidence. Suspicion alone is not enough. - Data Protection Law (UK GDPR, Article 5)
Organisations are responsible for ensuring personal data is:- Accurate,
- Processed lawfully, fairly, and proportionately,
- Retained only for as long as necessary.
If they cannot justify the filing, the marker may be unlawful.
- Fairness and Transparency
Individuals have the right to know what data has been recorded about them, how it was used, and how decisions were made. If this cannot be explained, the filing fails the transparency test.
What This Means in Practice #
If you challenge a marker:
- The bank must disclose the evidence it relied on.
- It must show how the evidence fits the Standard of Proof.
- It must explain why the product was refused, withdrawn, or terminated.
If the bank cannot provide this, the marker has no lawful basis.
Ombudsman and Court View #
- The Financial Ombudsman Service often rules against banks that cannot supply strong evidence, emphasising that consumers should not suffer years of exclusion because of weak suspicion.
- Courts have reinforced the principle of proportionality in fraud cases. For example, in Philipp v Barclays Bank [2023] UKSC 25, the Supreme Court highlighted the need for fairness and clear responsibility in fraud disputes.
Key Takeaway #
The burden of proof always lies with the bank, not the individual. If the bank cannot produce clear evidence, you have strong grounds to demand removal of the marker through complaint, Ombudsman escalation, or legal action.
