Guide section
The recording process
When a CIFAS member decides to file a marker, they submit a case to the NFD through a secure system. The case includes the individual's details, the type of marker, the evidence reference, and the member's assessment of the situation.
The process is supposed to follow the CIFAS filing standards, including having evidence of fraud, conducting an investigation, and ensuring proportionality. In practice, many markers are filed through automated systems with minimal human review.
Guide section
What should happen before a marker is filed
- A proper investigation into the circumstances
- Evidence gathered that meets the CIFAS standard of proof
- Assessment of whether the marker is proportionate
- Consideration of any vulnerability factors
- Internal sign-off by an appropriate person (not just an automated system)
- Notification to the individual that a marker will be or has been placed
Guide section
What often actually happens
In practice, many markers, particularly from challenger banks and fintech companies, are filed through automated fraud detection systems. An algorithm flags activity as suspicious, the account is closed, and a marker is filed with minimal human review. The individual often discovers the marker only when they are declined elsewhere.
This gap between what should happen and what actually happens is one of the most common grounds for a successful complaint. If the institution cannot demonstrate that they followed proper procedure, the marker is vulnerable to challenge.
Based on our research
Analysis of 1,313 unique published FOS decisions shows that procedural failures by the filing institution are one of the most common reasons markers are overturned.
Guide section
Accuracy obligations that apply on filing
When a case is filed to the NFD it becomes personal data under UK GDPR. That means the filing organisation is subject to the accuracy principle under Article 5(1)(d): personal data must be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.
If the data recorded is inaccurate, either because the marker category does not fit the conduct, the individual's details were wrong, or the evidence relied upon does not support the allegation, the institution has an ongoing obligation to correct or delete it. Inaccuracy under Article 5(1)(d) is one of the clearest grounds for removal.