Account closure - Cifas?

Hi, my name is Bart and I’ve been told that my account will be closed in 2 months.

I’ve got Cifas cat 6 marker on my file and I found that Monzo was the only bank that would allow me to create the bank account. It’s been a year since I got the account and they send me an email that they will close my account in 2 months time. I saw posts that people have been using Monzo with Cifas markers for years and they were okay with it so why did they decide to close my account?

My question is: is there any other app/bank that will allow me to create a bank account?

I am employed on contract, full time and I need to have a bank account to keep the job.

Did anyone else have similar situation with Monzo?

I used the account as my daily account, i was not using it for anything illegal or even gambling.

Does anyone have experience with ThinkMoney bank?

If you have a search there’s a lot of info about accounts with cifas and other options for you.

The two things probably aren’t related.

No one on the forum will know the reason why Monzo have closed your account, only they will know. Any responses will be speculation.

you should try opening an account with revolut or monese, they’re not a full bank however you can get your wages paid into them

In relation to committing first party fraud every bank will close your account for 6 years when they eventually find out. If you weren’t complicit but victim raise complaint with the source then go to Ombudsman.

Maybe try an outdated credit union or building society Savings account for your wages, then get a charge card you can transfer money to for card payments in shops that way when that eventually closes your wages are not disrupted in a Savings account. Or ask family to lend you their spare card for shopping.

Thinkmoney is good, and budgeting is realy handy

Honestly I find the CIFAS scheme pretty reprehensible to be honest. No one should be barred from anything without a conviction. I don’t understand how the government has allowed banks to be judge, jury and executioner. Especially in 2021, where an adult can’t reasonable function without a bank account.

1 Like

I’m not sure that “allowed“ is the right word here. Banks have been forced into it.

1 Like

CIFAS markers are not applied haphazardly. I’ve not seen a single post on here (and there’s a lot) where someone has had one wrongly applied.

I’m sure there are instances but my point is that it seems rare so the system looks to be working well in my opinion.

There are still plenty of options to open a bank account but they’re all basic and that doesn’t seem to
satisfy applicants who have markers. As harsh as it sounds, it’s one of the consequences of their own actions so you can’t really blame the banks for not wanting to take on the risk.

3 Likes

@CanadianSpruce If the person has participated in serious enough fraud they are obliged. The proof is on bank account activity - not reporting money they’ve not earned when they realise, taking a cut, enabling organised crime etc meanwhile a granny is traumatised or hospitalised by these criminals.

Most innocent vulnerable victims can explain, show correspondence etc on how social engineering has occurred so rare bank adds cifas they just issue warning or end relationship by just closing account

I’ve often wondered about basic accounts. What is the real difference between some basic accounts and just a current account without an overdraft?

If a bank offers you a basic bank account with a fully contactless visa debit card and the same banking experience as a current account customer, why not just call it a current account without the overdraft?

1 Like

I think the main thing with the basic accounts is that the UK Government directs the big 9
(Barclays, Clydesdale and Yorkshire Bank, Co-operative Bank, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group (including Halifax and Bank of Scotland brands), Nationwide, Royal Bank of Scotland (including NatWest and Ulster Bank brands), Santander, TSB) to provide them and therefore sets the rules in Regulations:

The Payment Accounts Regulations 2015 (legislation.gov.uk)

The main distinction here is that a regular account with no overdraft facility offers the ability to add one later (subject to status), but a basic account explicitly forbids adding an overdraft later --Regulation 19(5). It may also exclude you from the bank’s other credit facilities.

I get that; so then just always reject any credit request?

For example the Nationwide basic account will assess their account every now and then and if applicable they will upgrade them to a current account.

I guess I don’t see the logic to having a different account name when in reality it’s just a current account without borrowing facilities :man_shrugging:t2:

There are internal risk controls attached to them a bit like an 11 year olds debit card. Calling it a current account without overdraft will mix them up with current accounts that just don’t have an overdraft out of choice or eligibility but no risk to bank vs someone in bankruptcy for example

I don’t think that would work. These are accounts for people who generally have poor credit or are bankrupt. If someone with poor credit had a regular account with no real hope of having an overdraft request approved, it’s only going to push them down further if they do apply --leaving a mark on the credit report each time. With a basic account, it’s transparent from the outset that there’s no overdraft facility.

Then don’t let them apply. There’s nothing to stop a basic account being that but called a current account.

There are a few banks that have differences with basic accounts that others don’t. For example some give a contactless card, some don’t.

A lot of people in moments of need will just be dragged down at the idea that for many banks they can’t even open a current account. Just seems a small thing that could both have the same features/lack of features as a basic account but at least give people the name and experience of a current account. It might help even a little bit.

I’d imagine a large proportion of basic account holders are those that have been through bankruptcy. The law requires the big banks to provide those people, who many banks would be unlikely to want to deal with, with the basic services. That way both the bank and the customer are protected from being on the hook for money the client probably doesn’t have. However, banks can’t upsell their more profitable services to them, they just carry them on their books for the 6 years that bankruptcy stays on your file.

The law also sets out what services must and must not be provided in a basic account. A regular current account I believe it is entirely up to the bank what they provide, making them entirely separate products, even if they are functionally the same if you don’t want to borrow money.

I’m sure there are reasons like you said, and for many I’m sure it won’t be a surprised, but for others it makes them feel very… down. It’s hard to explain, and I’ve only got a few friends who have been in the position but the fact they were just wanting a bank account with no borrowing features and being told they weren’t eligible except for this basic account just made them cry.

I’m obviously too personally invested it this :joy:

1 Like