Guide section
How organisations check the NFD
When you apply for a financial product or service, the organisation typically checks the NFD as part of their fraud prevention process. This check returns any markers associated with your name and details. The organisation then decides how to respond based on their internal policies.
Guide section
Common consequences of an NFD check
- Application declined automatically by the checking system
- Existing account reviewed and potentially closed
- Additional verification required before proceeding
- Application flagged for manual review by a fraud team
- Insurance policy cancelled or renewal refused
- Employment application affected (for financial services roles)
Guide section
Automated decision-making
Many organisations use automated systems to process NFD checks. This means a marker can trigger an automatic decline without any human reviewing your specific case. Under UK GDPR Article 22, you have the right not to be subject to decisions based solely on automated processing that significantly affect you.
This is a powerful argument in CIFAS marker complaints, the marker is causing automated decisions that affect your access to essential financial services, without any human assessment of your individual circumstances.
Guide section
Your right to challenge automated decisions
Under Article 22 UK GDPR, you have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing that significantly affects you. Where a CIFAS marker is causing automated application refusals without any human reviewing your specific circumstances, this right may apply.
The Article 22 objection does not automatically require the decision to be reversed, but it requires the institution to carry out a meaningful human review of your case. An institution that cannot demonstrate such a review took place is in a weaker position at complaint and FOS stage.