Are Credit Searches Unfair

michael1983l

RobertoMoir wrote: »

I "get it" perfectly well. I just disagree with you and still don't think you've done much to address the points I've made. Either way I'm not going around this circle any longer.

More to the point that I have shot down your main reason in flames and you have no comeback. Its ok you can admit it.

RobertoMoir

tripled wrote: »

I don't agree that searches should not show on reports, but I think there could be a better system. When someone applies for credit, the search should go on the file and stay there whilst the application is processed. If credit is refused or someone turns down an offer, then the searches should disappear within 7 days of the decision. If someone accepts the offer of credit, or they don't confirm with the lender, then the search stays on the file as it does now.

That could work. No traces left on the system after a week or so and still acts as "gearing" to slow down the desperate.

michael1983l

RobertoMoir wrote: »

That could work. No traces left on the system after a week or so and still acts as "gearing" to slow down the desperate.

I can only assume you have never seen a desperate persons credit file because then you would understand that you wouldn't even need to look at the searches part to spot one. Yet that would destroy your whole argument so why would you admit that?

RobertoMoir

michael1983l wrote: »

More to the point that I have shot down your main reason in flames and you have no comeback. Its ok you can admit it.

Calm down, its only the internet.

I'm pretty sure you conceded the "debating genius" crown with your

Theirs is no more a fact than mine. Shhhh!

gibberish, and your claim that the current system was required by the FSA and total failure to back that up when asked, but if you still feel like you've "won" MoneySavingExpert.com then by all means have it.

dmg24

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

The point is the current system is unfair - fact.

The consumer should be free to shop around for the best deal, this can only be found after an application has been made.

The consumer is, under the current system, under pressure to accept the offer, because they are judged on having accepted the offer even if they haven't.

Therefore the system needs changing, as it is not fair.

Simples.

Do people not understand the difference between a fact and an opinion?

An opinion is your own personal viewpoint, which you may hold for whatever reasons you see fit. In order for something to be a fact, it must be possible to substantiate the statement with hard evidence.

The highlighted statement is an opinion, not a fact. Clearly not that simples to some!

michael1983l

RobertoMoir wrote: »

Calm down, its only the internet.

I'm pretty sure you conceded the "debating genius" crown with your
gibberish, and your claim that the current system was required by the FSA and total failure to back that up when asked, but if you still feel like you've "won" MoneySavingExpert.com then by all means have it.

The current system is agreed between the banks and the FSA which if you could read you will have seen that in the original post.

RobertoMoir

michael1983l wrote: »

The current system is agreed between the banks and the FSA which if you could read you will have seen that in the original post.

*sigh* I thought I was done, but I guess I'm not.

Below is your original post. Where does it validate your claim above? I can't see any claim that the FSA are involved in your original post.

I congratulate you on your ability to shoot people down, as you say. You should work on your aim though, as you've just shot yourself in the foot. Still the main thing is that you shot someone down right?

Oh yeah... How do you like my reading ability now?

Ok hear me out on this one, I have a major gripe withthe way credit reference agencies make their score. Everytime you make a search on your credit file you lose points right? then once you hit 5 searches within a set time period you get refused pretty much for everything wether you have taken credit on the previous searches or not.

Doesn't this go against freedom of choice to shop around. After all nobody knows which credit companies will accept you for sure until you apply meaning that its difficult to get the best deal on the market. surely a much better way to record searches would be to only record offers taken up, this would still stop people taking out too many accounts whilst at the same time giving the consumer the ability to search out the best deal available to them.

michael1983l

michael1983l wrote: »

Yes it might be of benafit to lenders but as consumers we should expect a better and fairer service. The reason it hasn't been changed is because all lenders have to adhere to the banking code set out. The code can be changed by the banks and the FSA but it would mean a majority decision so no not one maverick lender could break that rule.

As for the bit you discuss about searches, well searches mean nothing unless the account is taken up. We live in a modern world where these marks could realisitcally be placed on your credit file immidiatly, yes the banks should be concerned if a borrower is taking out lots of accounts in a short space of time but then again what relevance does 200 searches have in a month if only one offer is taken up.

:rotfl:ooops I wonder where that came from. as if by magic appeared or was it th..

RobertoMoir

So
It wasn't in your "original post" then. Glad you agree with me.

I asked you to show where this particular rule was contained in the banking code. Several times. You didn't. You still haven't. You've still not got a very convincing claim going on that it's me with the reading problem, have you?

Wutang_2

michael1983l wrote: »

:rotfl:ooops I wonder where that came from. as if by magic appeared or was it th..

I love your really banal comments. 10 out of 10