• Home
  • CIFAS Marker Removal: The Truth About Solicitors, Scare Tactics, And Your Rights

CIFAS Marker Removal: The Truth About Solicitors, Scare Tactics, And Your Rights

Discover the truth about CIFAS marker removal. Learn why ‘CIFAS solicitors’ aren’t always the solution — and how to remove your marker effectively.

CIFAS marker legal misunderstanding infographic
CIFAS is not a legal issue image produced representing the simple fact.
Picture of ADVICIFAS
ADVICIFAS
Corporate Protective
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
June 26, 2025

What is CIFAS Marker Removal?

CIFAS marker removal refers to the process of challenging and deleting a record placed on the CIFAS National Fraud Database.

These markers can be added by banks and other financial institutions when they suspect fraud or unacceptable risk.

The impact is severe: frozen accounts, declined applications, and damaged financial credibility and accessibility.

Despite what some solicitor firms claim, CIFAS marker removal is not a legal matter. It’s a data dispute, governed by GDPR and internal banking procedures — not by the courts.

NEW: Industry Ties that Undermine Victims

In a revealing discovery, Jeremy Asher of Setfords Solicitors — a name frequently associated with CIFAS marker representation — was listed as a speaker at the Counter Fraud Conference, an event sponsored by CIFAS, UK Finance, Experian, LexisNexis, and other financial industry stakeholders.

These are the very same organisations responsible for issuing or maintaining CIFAS markers — the exact markers Mr. Asher claims to help victims challenge.

This raises serious ethical and professional questions:

  • How can a solicitor who appears at conferences funded by the CIFAS establishment remain truly independent?
  • Can someone represent victims effectively while also participating in events endorsed by those who create the problem?

For clients seeking justice, this looks less like impartial legal representation — and more like alignment with the system they’re fighting against. 

At the very least, this constitutes a perceived conflict of interest. At worst, it suggests a deliberate attempts to control the CIFAS narrative by positioning “trusted” solicitors within both public and institutional spaces. 

Victims deserve independent, transparent advocacy, not representatives who appear closely connected to the organisations that harmed them.

Sources

What "CIFAS solicitors" are claiming

Many solicitor firms offer CIFAS marker removal as a complex legal process that only they are qualified to handle.

Their messaging often implies:

  • CIFAS markers are legal matters, requiring professional legal representation
  • Only a regulated solicitor can write a convincing argument to challenge the bank
  • Without their help, you will not succeed in getting the marker removed
  • You must act fast otherwise the marker will be more difficult to remove
  • Their solicitor status makes them more credible than any non-solicitor service

These claims are misleading.

The reality is: CIFAS marker removal is not a legal procedure — it’s a data dispute under GDPR. No special solicitor powers are required.

What matters most is strategic knowledge of CIFAS processes, principles, data rights, and how to challenge banks effectively.

The problem with CIFAS marker removal solicitors

Many people search for a CIFAS marker removal solicitor thinking a lawyer is the only, or most reliable, way to get the marker removed.

Their messaging often implies:

  • CIFAS markers are legal matters, requiring professional legal representation
  • Only a regulated solicitor can write a convincing argument to challenge the bank
  • Without their help, you will not succeed in getting the marker removed
  • You must act fast otherwise the marker will be more difficult to remove
  • Their solicitor status makes them more credible than any non-solicitor service

These claims are misleading.

The reality is: CIFAS marker removal is not a legal procedure — it’s a data dispute under GDPR. No special solicitor powers are required.

What matters most is strategic knowledge of CIFAS processes, principles, data rights, and how to challenge banks effectively.

Solicitors and the CIFAS Myth

Firms like Setfords, Richardson Lissack, and Kangs Solicitors are among those who perpetuate the narrative that CIFAS is a legal matter best handled by regulated solicitors. The truth is the opposite. CIFAS itself is not a court. It does not operate within the criminal justice system, and most importantly, solicitor firms are often more restricted in what they can do due to their regulatory status.

Because they are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and in many cases the FCA, solicitor firms are bound by stricter protocols. These restrictions mean they cannot apply pressure, escalate complaints publicly, or pursue advocacy routes that non-solicitor CIFAS specialists can. In essence, they’re playing by rules that work against the interests of their own clients.

The Money-Back Guarantee Smear Campaign

Many solicitor firms—Setfords in particular—have gone out of their way to descredit any firm offering a money-back guarantee, No Win No Fee agreements, or refund-based services. In their emails, Jeremy Asher of Setfords states: 

Please do not fall victim to non-Solicitor organisations making false promises... such as those offering No Win No Fee or refunds...

Jeremy Asher @ Setfords Tweet

He continues by dismissing the idea that compensation can be recovered and states CIFAS only upholds a small percentage of complaints. This tactic is designed to instil fear and steer clients away from genuine, results-focused organisations. It’s a veiled attempt to kill of competition from specialist firms that actually challenge the system — because they can do more than the solicitor’s can.

What Jeremy doesn’t tell his clients is that may non-solicitor firms are not limited by regulatory red tape. They don’t rely on pre-written templates and overly cautious letters. They build tailored cases, submit more powerful representations, and push harder — because they can.

It’s a saddening way to win money — by manipulating potential clients into thinking they are the only ones that can assist in their troubles, when they couldn’t be further from the truth.

Document [ADR.C_B8M1L4].pdf— sent to Jeremy Asher @ Setfords

ADVICIFAS message to Jeremy Asher @ Setfords Solicitors
Message sent to Jeremy Asher @ Setfords on 14 August 2024 — no response to date.

Dear Jeremy, for and on behalf of Setfords,

I write with good intention and with swiftly resolving a situation to supply a better understanding for both parties.

I am touching base with you today regarding recent contact made with one of my clients, and to share concerns raised by statements made in the same contact.

You are informing potential clients to “not fall victim to” firms offering No Win No Fee and/or guaranteed services – implying it is a scam or something else illicit in absolution.

I remember an instance last year (2023) whereby I was informed that when a potential client was having a call with you, they were informed, by you, that ADVICIFAS is a “scam” and I was appalled to learn of what you were stating to potential clients to gain a competitive advantage. This is stooping low Jeremy.

I do understand this is a competitive market, despite the industry of which it is, but you cannot state falsehood information such as the above to potential clients to limit their range in terms of competition to, hopefully, have them become your client – this is deceiving your potential clients and forcing them to use your services and this isn’t right.

The above would also imply that you are in the industry to pocket profits made by retailing services to vulnerable people with no intention or passion to help those in need – I am not stating this is the case, and I’d sure hope not.

I have demonstrated my skillset in hundreds of cases to free the finances of the unlawfully penalised and I am fully aware that I have removed, by far, the most CIFAS & alternative markers in the industry.

The guarantee of which I decide to facilitate is one backed by confidence – not by banks or other financial institutions, and it does not at all stand or sell to mean that I am guaranteeing the removal of the marker as that is impossible, but to, instead, supply support in the event I am unable to support in the removal of the marker(s) for peace of mind to my clients.

To add, I have had numerous clients who have used your services and have provided evidence of which seems like you are scamming clients, yet I do not use this to expedite the likelihood of potential clients becoming my client.

At the end of the day Jeremy, the decision of which service or firm a client chooses is up to the client, and making them feel like the only firm/service they can use is yours is absolutely wrong, and it is actually defamatory to the firms you are implicitly slandering as well.

Like financial institutions, I would love a system to be built so that we can all work together to fight against the financial services industry to supply a bigger change for the correct reasons and to prevent the unlawful financial lock-out faced by millions for risk limitation and to, most importantly, help our clients become financially free.

I would like to invite you to discuss this matter further and to provide a swift resolution for the both of us.

I await your response.

Kind Regards,

Drue Etheridge / ADVICIFAS

A Client's Story: Misled and Manipulated

One ADVICIFAS client previously paid Jeremy Asher at Setfords £1,000 under the impression that this was a payment for the full CIFAS marker removal service. Only after paying was the client asked if they had evidence to support their case. Upon answering “no”, the client was told assistance could not be provided.

The contract signed—under pressure and without full explanation—included a clause stating the fee was non-refundable. This is a common and deeply unethical practice used to trap vulnerable individuals into paying for nothing.

How Solicitors Manipulate Prospects into Becoming Clients

Many solicitor firms operating in the CIFAS marker space employ tactics that prey on fear, urgency, and misinformation to convert hesitant or vulnerable individuals into paying clients — often without a genuine chance of success.

One common approach is pressuring individuals who were otherwise prepared to wait out the remaining duration of their CIFAS marker. Clients have reported being told that “applying for a financial product will reset the six-year clock”, a claim that is demonstrably false and not supported by CIFAS guidance. This creates unnecessary panic, making the client believe they’re in danger of extending their hardship unless they act immediately — by paying legal fees — Jeremy Asher @ Setfords is most notable, again, for this tactic.

In another troubling pattern, solicitor firms routinely exaggerate the consequences of having a CIFAS marker, especially for those with limited to no documentation. Instead of managing expectations and explaining the challenge instead, they imply doom, insinuating that without legal representation, clients have no chance of success. These firms intentionally downplay the possibility of specialist firms achieving better outcomes, even when the case lacks concrete evidence — often the precise moment when a solicitor would advise against spending large sums.

In more than several instances, we’ve seen clients who were told things like:

  • “Your case is very serious. Without legal help, no one will remove this.”
  • “This will effect you for life — even after six years — unless we take action now.”
  • “You need to act fast, otherwise it will get worse.”

Even in some cases, clients were informed by these firms that they couldn’t assist due to a lack of evidence — because it isn’t easy money — and then, whilst the prospect is living their worst nightmare now fuelled by loss of confidence, doubt, and rejection, the solicitor then proceeds to maliciously and falsely claim how serious their situation is, that they’ll not be able to remove this marker, that they’re in inevitable financial hardship for the next six years — as if they weren’t already feeling bad enough.

These are fear-driven sales tactics, not legitimate legal advice. What’s worse, these tactics are frequently aimed at the most vulnerable of vulnerable individuals, many of whom are desperate to restore their financial standing and are willing to pay large sums under false impressions. Just as was the case with one client of one of these firms where they approached us after being informed their situation was unresolvable and had no confidence in resolution, but just in 8 weeks, we removed their marker without evidence and they were then financially free.

CIFAS' Own Position on Advocacy Firms

CIFAS frequently warns consumers against using advocacy firms, stating they make false guarantees. But the real reason for these warnings is often overlooked. Non-solicitor firms like ADVICIFAS are not bound by FCA or SRA restrictions. They can:

  • Publicly escalate complaints;
  • Challenge institutions directly;
  • Expose data mishandling; and
  • Push for results without fearing fines for aggressive advocacy.

And that’s what makes them dangerous—to the status quo. These firms fight for the people. They highlight injustice. They pull back the curtain on systems that rely on silence and compliance.

Conclusion: The Truth Behind the Curtain

The legal industry is not the solution to CIFAS markers—it is often part of the problem. Solicitor firms charge astronomical fees, use regulatory limitations as excuses, and shame legitimate competitors who produce real results.

Customers must understand: CIFAS is not a legal matter. It is a data dispute. A compliance issue. A matter of advocacy and persistence.

Specialist firms like ADVICIFAS are leading the way—not with threats or legal jargon, but with evidence, exposure, and accountability.

If you’re facing a CIFAS marker, don’t fall for fear-driven sales tactics. Look for firms who fight hard, refund failures, and focus on one thing only: results.

If you are a client with one of these firms, you can contact us about this article by emailing us at [email protected].

Frequently Asked Questions

Discover answers to our most-common questions regarding CIFAS markers.

A CIFAS marker is a fraud-related flag recorded on the CIFAS National Fraud Database (NFD) by a bank or financial institution, otherwise known as a ‘CIFAS Member’.

It can restriction your ability to open accounts, obtain loans, or even gain employment in the financial services industry, including as an accountant.

No. Solicitors are not required for CIFAS marker removal — and often use scare tactics to charge extortionate fees, despite the fact they have no special ability in any CIFAS removal process.

Removal is an administrative and regulatory process, not a legal case.

If you search for CIFAS on the FCA Register, you won’t find them — because CIFAS is not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), nor are they regulated by anyone else.

This fact alone proves that CIFAS marker removal is not a regulated financial service. It is, therefore, also not a legal issue, which means solicitors or “CIFAS Lawyers” have no special authority or advantage in this process.

Their involvement is often unnecessary, and in many cases, unjustly expensive. The truth is that solicitors have no regulatory role and no exclusive ability to remove a CIFAS marker — making their claims, again, misleading and their fees unjustified.

Some advertise this service under ‘Financial Services Regulation’ but where is the regulation?

Simply because they hop into anything that will generate them a higher profit, even when it’s clearly not a matter requiring a solicitor.

Many solicitors frame CIFAS markers as legal matters to justify higher costs. In reality, CIFAS markers fall under data protection (having been endorsed by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)), fairness, and regulatory guidelines, not criminal or civil law proceedings.

The only time a solicitor might be useful is after you’ve exhausted the initial complaint, the complaint to CIFAS, and the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), but even that’s a ‘might’.

We’ve assisted numerous clients in cases whereby they’ve exhausted the entire process, but we’ve still been able to remove the CIFAS marker without having to go to court within 8 weeks — some cases even having been previously exhausted by the same solicitor firms claiming CIFAS marker removal is something requiring a solicitor/lawyer, when it isn’t.

No. Solicitors won’t guarantee the removal of a CIFAS marker because they are fully aware as to their lack of any special ability in the process.

Most of them solely take cases that have masses of evidence as these are considered “easy cases”, therefore equaling easy money. In these cases, it’s not the solicitor’s ability, knowledge, or strategy that removes the marker, it’s solely the evidence — hence why it’s an “easy case”.

They additionally attempt to manipulate prospects they cannot onboard due to a lack of evidence that our money-back guarantee is something malicious — gaining the “upper hand”, or competitive advantage, by bad-mouthing legitimate competitor organisations in the industry.

Our money-back guarantee is a guarantee based on our confidence to deliver. It has nothing to do with obtaining your fee from the recording institution, like many “CIFAS solicitors” attempt to paint the perspective as. We refund the fee, out of our own pocket (not the institution’s), if we’re unsuccessful.

Your funds are paid, received, and left until we complete your service successfully — “left” meaning unspent. Do not trust the manipulator’s narrative.

For more information, visit the Guarantee Centre.

You have the right to challenge the marker, request evidence, and escalate complaints through internal and external review processes, and, if needed, the Financial Ombudsman.

You also retain rights under UK GDPR to ensure fair and accurate data handling.

Most CIFAS markers last for six years, unless successfully removed. If the CIFAS marker was recorded when you were under 21, then it will last for a maximum of 3 years.

Acting early can reduce the financial damage and stress they cause, but it does not make the CIFAS marker any more or less likely to be removed when challenging it.

For more information, visit our dedicated guide on CIFAS Marker Removal.

Yes. Many people successfully remove CIFAS markers themselves with the right knowledge and templates. ADVICIFAS provides step-by-step guides and document packs if you’d prefer to handle it independently.

If you’re interested in our CIFAS Marker Removal Templates, or our Document Packages, send us an email at [email protected].

Unfortunately, whilst you have a CIFAS marker, you will find it impossible obtaining even a basic bank account with the likes of TSB, Lloyds Bank, HSBC, Barclays, or any other major bank.

However, you are able to open e-money accounts that you can use in the same was a bank account with limited features. They include a sort code, account number, and debit card.

For more information including our in-house recommendation, visit Bank Accounts That Accept CIFAS Markers.

More to explore

CA Auto Finance: Mishandling of Fraud Victims

How UK Banks Are Quietly Controlling How You Spend Your Own Money