The proportionality principle

Even where some wrongdoing occurred, a CIFAS marker may be disproportionate to the circumstances. The proportionality test asks whether the response (a fraud marker on a national database for six years) is proportionate to the underlying conduct.

The Financial Ombudsman applies proportionality when assessing CIFAS marker complaints. Markers have been removed in cases where the underlying conduct, while concerning, did not justify the severe consequences of a fraud marker.

Factors that affect proportionality

• The severity of the underlying conduct
• Whether the conduct was a one-off or a pattern
• The impact of the marker on the individual's life
• Whether the individual was vulnerable, young, or inexperienced
• Whether there were mitigating circumstances
• Whether a less severe response would have been appropriate
• The time that has passed since the conduct

When proportionality arguments succeed

Proportionality arguments are particularly effective where the conduct was minor, the individual was vulnerable, or the consequences of the marker are severe relative to the underlying issue. For example, a marker placed on a young person who unwittingly received one suspicious payment may be disproportionate when it prevents all access to banking for six years.