Barclaycard have damaged my credit rating are they liable?

Cash_Flow

ILW wrote: »

I think you will find that these are not the ones you pay £5.95 to see.

Please advise where you got this information from?

ILW

Same source as one of my previous posts.
But then again, if you are happy to keep throwing cash a CRAs, who am I to try to advise otherwise.

jonesMUFCforever

Going back to OP's original post can he please advise us why he has not cleared the card or brought the balance down?
This would then reflect when the CRA's update their records and his credit score would go up again or have I missed something?
Then he could pay Barclaycard for making his irrelevant credit score good again LOL

olly300

philip99 wrote: »

Hi there,

I like many others have had my Barclaycard credit limit slashed. I always pay the card off in full and before this had a experian credit rating of 995/1000.

However Barclaycard slashed my credit limits without warning me to just 5% above the card balances. This now means that on my credit report I am essentially 'maxed out' at 95% of my usable credit. If they had given me warning I could have cleared the card etc, or brought it down to the 30% optimum for credit agencies. Due to this my credit rating is now classed as 'poor'.

I have gone from someone with a credit report of 995/1000 who paid his card off in full every month, so someone who now has no credit and a 'poor' rating. And I am still completely consistent!

Therefore Barclaycard are responsible damaging my credit rating, not me.

In the future surely it will be law that they have to give you some notice that they intent to change your credit limit?

I am fuming with Barclaycard, been with them 16 years, and now despise them.

Your credit rating isn't damaged.

Barclaycard are either seeing you as:
1. A higher risk due to the amount you have on your card each month even though you pay it off,
2. Not profitable due to clearing your balance off entirely.

I got applied for another credit card and used it due to it's 0% deal. This credit card had a higher limit and within a month Barclaycard increased my card limit. Once I cleared that card before the 0% deal finished in July they increased my limit by £200. Within a month Barclaycard, who I used to spend a max of £50 a month on every 3 or so months and paid off in full, also increased my limit by £200.

Neither of the card companies informed me they would be increasing my limit until they had done it.

Paul_Herring

leachyd wrote: »

Isnt that what everyone except herring has been saying!?

Um, no. Why do you think that I was one of the people who thanked them for that post.

And nothing in their post negates what I've said.

Namely Experians "Credit Score" is highly misleading at best, since it doesn't include the stuff credit companies actually consider.

exel1966

philip99 wrote: »

Hi there,

I like many others have had my Barclaycard credit limit slashed. I always pay the card off in full and before this had a experian credit rating of 995/1000.

However Barclaycard slashed my credit limits without warning me to just 5% above the card balances. This now means that on my credit report I am essentially 'maxed out' at 95% of my usable credit. If they had given me warning I could have cleared the card etc, or brought it down to the 30% optimum for credit agencies. Due to this my credit rating is now classed as 'poor'.

I have gone from someone with a credit report of 995/1000 who paid his card off in full every month, so someone who now has no credit and a 'poor' rating. And I am still completely consistent!

Therefore Barclaycard are responsible damaging my credit rating, not me.

In the future surely it will be law that they have to give you some notice that they intent to change your credit limit?

I am fuming with Barclaycard, been with them 16 years, and now despise them.

I suspect they despise you too for being nothing but an attention seeking TROLL with such a lightweight ill-informed argument to support your trolling

As for those who believe the fictitious credit score they pay Experian/Equifax for actually means anything, then your naivity is astounding !

chattychappy

To answer the OP...

No, I don't think you have any claim against Barclays. For whatever reason they have chosen to reduce your limit, which they are entitled to do. They have also reported this to a CRA. Since the information they have supplied the CRA is truthful, I can't see that there is a claim arising from that.

The problem stems from the interpretation third parties place on information received from the CRA - ie the score they calculate. (And Experian themselves in the case of the "credit score" they sell - but only you see this.)

But you can't hold Barclays responsible for the interpretation third parties place on their actions.

[Deleted User]

Firstly, back to the OP: I don't believe that Barclaycard reducing your limit has dropped your credit 'score' from Excellent to Poor. I think there's something else either you're not telling us, or that you don't know. Have they dropped your limit because you missed payments, perhaps, or defaulted?

Re: everyone else.

My point wasn't that credit scores are 'accurate', but are they useful. Well, yes, I think they are.

Everyone seems to be exaggerating the extent to which banks make their own credit scoring decisions based upon the information given, but what I was trying to say is that - broadly speaking - it's fairly likely that Experian's opinion of your credit report (as evidenced by the 'score' they give you) is pretty close to the opinion of your lender.

Yes, banks factor in salary, occupation, time at bank etc, but they still see the same information that the CRAs give them. It's the same information. Your credit score is an opinion given by the CRA on your credit report:

"If you had to condense the whole report down into a number, where 000 is bad and 999 is good, what would you give it"

Just because the 'number' doesn't mean anything on its own, doesn't mean it's not useful. If experian think you're bad for credit, then the bank normally thinks your bad for credit.

Let's be fair here: there are a lot of people here who struggle to understand their credit report (I was one of them!) and sometimes a nice big round number is much easier for them to get to grips with than a whole bunch of data.

Fact: You are more likely to get credit with a score of 999 than a score of 111 (excluding Dodgy Dave's back-alley loan shark)

So, what's the harm in giving customers one number that gives them a quick snapshot of their report, holistically?

You make it sound like the CRAs are magicing random numbers up completely regardless of what's on someone's credit report and completely against whether that customer is a sound person to lend money to or not. If they were that inaccurate, people would stop using them, surely...?

ILW

Deleted_User wrote: »

Firstly, back to the OP: I don't believe that Barclaycard reducing your limit has dropped your credit 'score' from Excellent to Poor. I think there's something else either you're not telling us, or that you don't know. Have they dropped your limit because you missed payments, perhaps, or defaulted?

Re: everyone else.

My point wasn't that credit scores are 'accurate', but are they useful. Well, yes, I think they are.

Everyone seems to be exaggerating the extent to which banks make their own credit scoring decisions based upon the information given, but what I was trying to say is that - broadly speaking - it's fairly likely that Experian's opinion of your credit report (as evidenced by the 'score' they give you) is pretty close to the opinion of your lender.

Yes, banks factor in salary, occupation, time at bank etc, but they still see the same information that the CRAs give them. It's the same information. Your credit score is an opinion given by the CRA on your credit report:

"If you had to condense the whole report down into a number, where 000 is bad and 999 is good, what would you give it"

Just because the 'number' doesn't mean anything on its own, doesn't mean it's not useful. If experian think you're bad for credit, then the bank normally thinks your bad for credit.

Let's be fair here: there are a lot of people here who struggle to understand their credit report (I was one of them!) and sometimes a nice big round number is much easier for them to get to grips with than a whole bunch of data.

Fact: You are more likely to get credit with a score of 999 than a score of 111 (excluding Dodgy Dave's back-alley loan shark)

So, what's the harm in giving customers one number that gives them a quick snapshot of their report, holistically?

You make it sound like the CRAs are magicing random numbers up completely regardless of what's on someone's credit report and completely against whether that customer is a sound person to lend money to or not. If they were that inaccurate, people would stop using them, surely...?

OK they may have limited use if you cannot make your own guess( loads of missed payments, no electoral roll, etc = low score) from the data which you see. The fact that Experian (for example) charge you about £6.00 everytime you wish to see this score makes them an expensive luxury for what they are.

Paul_Herring

Deleted_User wrote: »

So, what's the harm in giving customers one number that gives them a quick snapshot of their report, holistically?

1) It's (typically) sold, not given
2) It's not made clear exactly what that number represents, in fact it's typically mis-represented to the point where people with 990+ scores genuinely wonder why they're refused credit, when they believe such a score entitles them to acceptance by (e.g.) any of the major CC suppliers.

You make it sound like the CRAs are magicing random numbers up completely regardless of what's on someone's credit report and completely against whether that customer is a sound person to lend money to or not.

It may not be random, but it might just as well be for what people think that number represents.

If they were that inaccurate, people would stop using them, surely...?

You'd have thought so, yes, but due to the power of marketing, people still buy them. See point #2 above.

Edit: Yet another thread about people with a "good" Experian Credit score wondering why they were refused by Halifax: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1983999 - how can so many people be confused by this if Experian are being 'open' or 'accurate' about what the Score they provide actually is?