Petition to No.10 Downing Street

Paul_Herring

After 6 yeards

ILW wrote: »

The poll is looking pretty level at the moment. I find that rather surprising.

Why?

Those that are (or think they may be) affected by the 6 year rule but wouldn't be affected by the 3 year rule would naturally want the 3 year rule.



Those that feel that they aren't (or wouldn't) be (adversely) affected by the 6 year rule compared with the 3 year rule feel that a reduction would result in 'less credit worthy' people (those in the 3-6 year range) being treated the same as them.
Since they're 'less credit worthy', but being lumped into the same group as them, the average risk of the whole group goes up, which would likely result in more expensive loans etc, so they're naturally going to want the 6 year rule.


All of this, of course, ignores that - on the whole, older stuff in your credit record is given less prominence to your credit score anyway. (Though at this exact moment in time, what with the 'credit crunch' and all, any blemish on your record is simply an excuse for lenders to hike up the rate. Any major stuff in the last 3 years is likely to earn you a flat out refusal of credit to begin with.)

PNPSUKNET

After 3 years

I think it should be the same, 3 years. All you need todo and it happened to me is move house and forget about 1 account and you are messed up for years and lenders take advantage of it

ILW

After 6 yeards

PNPSUKNET wrote: »

I think it should be the same, 3 years. All you need todo and it happened to me is move house and forget about 1 account and you are messed up for years and lenders take advantage of it

Isn't it better that people who do not "forget" about accounts get a better deal?

Mail redirection is pretty simple.

cosmic_girl

After 3 years

I have no adverse credit either and never had but I think whilst there are some folks who totally pull the tickets of banks etc, there are also a massive number of people who (through no fault of their own) run into difficulties for whatever reason.

I think three years is a fair amount of time. People who are taking the "micheal" (i.e. purposely with no intentions of paying debt back) should perhaps have marks put on their files but those who have run into problems due to reasons out with their control should not be penalised. I work in social work and come across all types of peeps with financial problems - it can happen to anyone at anytime - no matter how good with money you are x

flyingscotno1

After 6 yeards

Surely a mixed bag- if CRA only have 3 years of data, they will base any credit on that, which may mean lower credit to reduce risk. Europe doesn't in general have the same access to credit as we do- and if we go to 3 years and lenders reduce risk as a result we'll be worse off.

never-in-doubt

After 3 years

ILW - we all know you're just perfect and probably a spy for the CRA's as you're totally anti consumer rights (just out of curiosity why even bother with these forums?).....

The reason that 3 years is suffice and the norm, everywhere except the UK, is because it is tighter regulated (unlike the UK) and the lenders realise that 3 years is a long time and cannot be a true reflection of a persons credit worthiness - proven.

What this means is that lets say I am a 60 year old man who has worked for 45 years. I was then made redundant and reduced my payments to the lenders for a year until I got myself back on track, they'd be posting information that is factually inaccurate because in all my working life I had one bad spell and immediately rectified it by getting another job, granted it took a year but I did have an arrangement with my creditors.

Why then is it right for them to suggest that I had missed payments/arrangement to pay that will show for 5yrs after the event? It is just wrong, immoral and totally useless information that gives the lenders a false image of a persons creditworthiness.

So please ILW, get down from your high horse and look at the bigger picture. For the record, you'll find the poll will win unanimously with 3yrs because the majority of people believe that 6 is just unecessary which it is and which trading standards are also in agreement with (they are waiting to pounce and when they do, the law will change wait and see).

soul619

After 6 yeards

holding data for 6 years help to prevent fraud, so making them change it to 3 years will only increase the risk of fraud being done agenst you!

never-in-doubt

After 3 years

soul619 wrote: »

holding data for 6 years help to prevent fraud, so making them change it to 3 years will only increase the risk of fraud being done agenst you!

Totally incorrect, please provide a basis of proof for this outrageous comment......?

cosmic_girl

After 3 years

I may be wrong, but I am sure I have read somewhere that consumer debt is not nearly as bad (in general) in the rest of Europe compared to the UK? That being the case, they are obviously doing something better than us.

I don't understand how 3 years would aid fraudsters. Surely if someone is going to commit fraud against you, they will manage regardless of whether files are held for 3 or 6.

Also, the fact that the majority of companies only require 2 or 3 years credit history anyway, I don't see how a move like this could pose and problems for the financial system. Lots of people on here say that anything past the 3 year point doesn't really count as much if you have good history for the most recent years, so what difference would it make if it wasn't on your file? x

I think this move would just give people the opportunity to move on from a difficult time in their life quicker x

ElkyElky

After 3 years

I wouldn't mind having positive data kept on my file for 6 years and the negative wiped off within 3. :j