Just try, Santander is soft search first and you can do it every 30 days. It will just tell you to wait X days if you try before then.
1 Like
They would accept it based on the eligability checker (I was pre-approved). Guessing I should just wait until I can 100% prove I will get this income before actually applying?
1 Like
I’d say that would be the best approach. I’ve had Amex and NatWest ask for payslips before.
1 Like
Good to know I would be accepted though, just need to wait a bit longer for now.
Should get out the habit of falsifying figures for credit approvals early, easily trigger fraud alerts.
1 Like
I have literally said I’m not going to apply. It is clearly not a habit.
1 Like
Even through a soft check, Santander may still be suspicious if your salary turns to be different.
The data is still stored internally.
My comment was because you lied on the form about your salary, you don’t have that salary.
1 Like
I think everything will be perfectly ok 
All fun and games until you have a CIFAS.
Yes, very low probability in this scenario, but not impossible.
There’s probably nothing the banks can really do, especially when anyone could do an eligibility check for someone else as the information needed is incredibly basic. Would be a simple way for anyone to give someone they don’t like a CIFAS if that was the case.
Santander also probably have limited ways of knowing my full income as it could just be getting paid into a different account.
They use both internal and external data (credit reports as they can see account turnover for accounts visible there, consumers don’t see that).
Of course they can, it’s a regulated business, the data doesn’t disappear to thin air.
Whomever you’re applying to could apply CIFAS markers if they feel you’re falsifying data to gain financial products (fraud), even if you feel it’s innocent.
The likelihood here is very low, but not impossible, and that was my point.
As I said, I didn’t apply. I would agree with you if I actually applied, but there are no checks when doing the eligibility checker to even make sure I am who I said I was. If it was the case you could realistically get a CIFAS marker from just checking, it would be incredibly easy to abuse the system and get markers for those you don’t like.
Whether you applied in full or not, that’s not the point.
Could be viewed as gaming the system to improve your eligibility by falsifying data to benefit better rates or limits. Aka fraud.
If you don’t understand it, then fine, but don’t continue to challenge it with zero fraud knowledge or experience.
Do you have actual knowledge that this exact thing has been seen negatively by banks AND actually punished by using a CIFAS marker, because if not, then I am perfectly entitled to challenge what would be an incredibly flawed way of punishing “fraud”, especially when I will very shortly be able to show anyone who asks that that is my income?
You’re clueless.
Also misunderstanding the two points here.
Falsifying data for financial gain = fraud.
I said not to make a habit of it, as it could be viewed as such by banks. Even if you feel it’s innocent, it’s still false data.
You also don’t have that salary, but input false salary data to check if you’d gain a financial product = fraud.
While you did not go ahead, you still lied.
As for CIFAS, it’s down to the bank to make that assessment, a CIFAS isn’t generally always a bad thing in the points you’re trying to clear up RE other people. It can also protect people.
A pre eligibility check does verify you, and the data you give, to ascertain whether you are eligible based on the checks they make.
While the above is extreme, your ignorance really shines.
Good day.
1 Like
Ok, I might be clueless, but you still have completely failed to address the point about the banks not knowing who fills out the eligibility checker.
If this was punished by CIFAS marker, how could the banks stop someone easily giving a CIFAS marker to someone else? An abusive partner could easily take advantage of this if this were the case.
I may be clueless, but logically, punishing this by CIFAS marker would be open to so much abuse. The banks simply cannot know who is genuinely filling out the checker as the information asked for is so basic.
And I’m not being so defensive because I feel guilty or anything. I know that is my income, it’s just so early on that I may or may not have proof that a bank would accept. I’d personally rather just wait until I definitely do. I just question how banks could “punish” this if the figure was lied about.
You know, it’s sunny out there and maybe both of you might benefit from a step outside for a few minutes?
6 Likes
I would love to go outside. I’m cleaning up which is probably why I am commenting so much 
I’m not paid to go outside but I am paid to sit at my desk and dawdle
3 Likes
Santander actually did this to someone
https://www.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/comments/hyctda/santander_reported_a_cifas_6_marker_wont_remove/
It turned out his income had indeed reduced since he made the application
They then paid him £500 compensation and removed it, not before nearly all his other accounts were closed
But still it’s obviously a stupid idea to lie about your salary, because if this guy hadn’t actually been telling the truth he might not ever have gotten rid of the marker
The update/removed post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/comments/ib8jzz/update_santander_reported_a_cifas_6_marker_wont/
1 Like