Mortgage trail leaves painful marker
HE HAD hoped to have bought his first home by now, but Samir Khan’s dreams lie in ruins and his financial future bleak after discovering a fraud marker against his name.
“This has terrible consequences, I’m not a criminal,” the 32-year-old told Crusader when stressing his innocence.
Now in a battle to clear his name, he is in a dreadful bind because of the marker registered with Cifas. The independent fraud prevention database provides essential protection and is the one UK organisations check and contribute to.
The fraud and conduct risk marker lasts for six years. However anyone who disputes theirs can ultimately appeal to the Financial Ombudsman for removal.
Lockdown has heightened awareness of Cifas as some individuals and business owners, in the course of seeking Government support, have been rejected only learning afterwards it was because of a marker.
Crusader has received many protests, some more understandable than others. Samir’s predicament, riven with unintentional discrepancies, encapsulates many of the complications and misfortunes befalling people.
Before this he had been confident of his clean credit history. Like many he has two jobs, one in accounting and another as a self-employed taxi driver.
He used a broker for his mortgage applications but was not given the chance to see the form before it was sent. “I trusted the expert,” he says.
When the first application was declined, his focus was on moving on, not finding out why. However his income information had triggered concerns with the bank and it had flagged those.This did not scupper his chance with another lender but was on the record.
A second application by the broker to Santander made a mistake over his second income. A correction was submitted and accepted.
Separately however the tax information submitted by Samir’s accountant for his tax return failed to include his student loan. An amendment sent subsequently was accepted by HMRC and Samir settled the bill.
Santander was also doing its loan checks with HMRC around the time of the amendment exchange and that may have contributed to the Inland Revenue saying it could not verify Samir’s information. A Cifas marker was then applied which Samir found out about when a third lender rejected him.
Santander said: “The subsequent marker placed was done so in accordance with industry practice.”
Bad timing, mitigating circumstances, however Samir’s case is viewed, the slips by professionals who benefitted from his custom have not helped.
As well as a sober warning to others he hopes his experience will spur others to double check their details, do their own mortgage calculator checks and ensure their income is verification proof.
Thanking Crusader for its help, Samir said: “Before I was in the dark but I feel more able now to explain myself to the Ombudsman.”
Samir’s name has been changed.