The Sub Prime Credit Thread - Part V

DizzleUK

My dispute....

I notice on my report a company called UK Search Ltd has access my report without my consent regarding an "outstanding debt" at my previous address. I am aware that they would have conducted the search on behalf of another company. I am not aware of who this company is that commissioned the search, though I am certain this will relate to a statute barred debt as I made sure that I brought all current commitments to my new address.

I notice that one table 1 search and two table 2 searches have been made by this company. 3 searches on the same day is excessive, and as I am working very hard to repair my credit rating I would insist that steps are taken for you to remove the table 1 search from my file.

If you are unwilling to remove this search, please would you then ascertain who commissioned the search so that I may prove the debt is statute barred and therefore the search ruled as unwarranted and then removed.

In fact, I would like to request both "outstanding debt" searches are removed from all Table 1 lists.
Your own text describes Table 1 searches as "The following table shows searches undertaken in connection with credit applications". Searches in relation to "outstanding debts" are NOT credit applications.
Your own definition of Table 2 searches is "The following table shows searches undertaken for purposes other than credit applications". "Outstanding debt" searches fall into this category and, by your own pubslished definition should only appear in these tables.
If you insist that my understanding of this is incorrect, you should update your definitions accordingly.
Be assured, I will be relentless in pursuing this matter through to a conclusion agreeable to me, and will take all actions necessary and available to me.

kilasuit

nice kinda throws the ball into their court and makes them chase after you

never-in-doubt

izools wrote: »

A CPD marker notifies whether or not they consider you fair risk for more credit.

But you're missing what i'm saying mate - they cannot determine that by you staying within your limits..... different if you went overlimit but so long as you stay within any agreed limit set by the lender they cannot penalise you.

izools wrote: »

It makes perfect sense - if you go right up to your overdraft limit every month without making credit payments to them, how could you afford to make credit payments to them?

Cos I may have accounts elsewhere and have £XXXXXX in other accounts that they do not know about, maybe I prefer to utilise any interest free overdrafts and keep my main (or other) accounts in credit. In fact, here is a scenario for you, I use my Lloyds account as a spending account for work expenses claims only. Therefore, being it has a £2k overdraft, I let it run into it and when my company pay expenses back at the end of the month, it clears the o/d and puts me back to £0.

That is perfectly acceptable as one (of many) reasons why this theory is flawed and not allowed, as it will disciminate against you for utilising a facility that has been agreed.

izools wrote: »

A CPD marker just says no more - I think it's a bit of a grey area whether this is adverse or just lending policy.

I say it is a con - pure and simple really :rotfl: :rotfl:

izools wrote: »

Would you lend to someone who uses 95% of their overdraft for three weeks in the month? Or would you hold on to your capital until an applicant comes along who never uses their overdraft and keeps a healthy running balance?

Using my example above - yes, 100% I would - cos in that example the guy earns £100k per annum and owns his house outright and also has £500k in the bank.

Its an extreme example but my point remains, the banks will ONLY see a true reflection of his REAL financial situation if they perform a credit search - their theory of CPD is flawed from outset.

izools wrote: »

I can totally appreciate LTSB's stance and had no idea that it could post a breach of the banking code - I must read more....

I can't appreciate their stance - it is flawed. I shall be looking to take this further - watch this space! (and I don't even bank with them) :rotfl:

The banking code doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, its like giving someone wet toilet roll to use!!

never-in-doubt

seeya23 wrote: »

at work later 4.30 till 10.30 not looking forward to it need to apply for somethink :rotfl::rotfl:

Nooo - just wait LOL - you're mad mate!

Hows the job going, you like it?

ElkyElky

Checked my Equifax report and my E/R data isn't showing. I emailed them but they told me to contact my council to get a letter to show I am on it. Pain in the @rse.

However, I think it's not showing on my credit report because my council lists my address differently to the format I've been using for the last 4 years, so I'm going to apply for something and type my address using the councils format (hopefully that'll knock things back in to place?).

Odd that because I've been using Royal Mail's format which is Flat x, xx high street... but the councils format for my address is totally different. If I used the councils format, no company would recognise it because they all have the Royal Mail database (for like ordering things online).

Zack1

ElkyElky wrote: »

Checked my Equifax report and my E/R data isn't showing. I emailed them but they told me to contact my council to get a letter to show I am on it. Pain in the @rse.

However, I think it's not showing on my credit report because my council lists my address differently to the format I've been using for the last 4 years, so I'm going to apply for something and type my address using the councils format (hopefully that'll knock things back in to place?).

Odd that because I've been using Royal Mail's format which is Flat x, xx high street... but the councils format for my address is totally different. If I used the councils format, no company would recognise it because they all have the Royal Mail database (for like ordering things online).

I have that situation, it's such a shambles. Although I think when you make a full credit application they do take time to look you up properly if it's referred. That's pretty much what Barclaycard said anyway - to get an automated decision on that pre-app thing I have to mess about with the address and put it in a stupid way, but when I make a real application I can put it in properly and they research and link it up properly

Hopefully Vanquis arrives soon, I wanna knew my limit:rotfl:

izools

never-in-doubt wrote: »

But you're missing what i'm saying mate - they cannot determine that by you staying within your limits..... different if you went overlimit but so long as you stay within any agreed limit set by the lender they cannot penalise you.



Cos I may have accounts elsewhere and have £XXXXXX in other accounts that they do not know about, maybe I prefer to utilise any interest free overdrafts and keep my main (or other) accounts in credit. In fact, here is a scenario for you, I use my Lloyds account as a spending account for work expenses claims only. Therefore, being it has a £2k overdraft, I let it run into it and when my company pay expenses back at the end of the month, it clears the o/d and puts me back to £0.

That is perfectly acceptable as one (of many) reasons why this theory is flawed and not allowed, as it will disciminate against you for utilising a facility that has been agreed.



I say it is a con - pure and simple really :rotfl: :rotfl:



Using my example above - yes, 100% I would - cos in that example the guy earns £100k per annum and owns his house outright and also has £500k in the bank.

Its an extreme example but my point remains, the banks will ONLY see a true reflection of his REAL financial situation if they perform a credit search - their theory of CPD is flawed from outset.



I can't appreciate their stance - it is flawed. I shall be looking to take this further - watch this space! (and I don't even bank with them) :rotfl:

The banking code doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, its like giving someone wet toilet roll to use!!

Did you want me to write to their credit referrals team and see if I can get some of this in writing? Could help with your taking it further!

And you're bang on the money, the bank shouldn't say one minute "yeah, have an overdraft" and then the next minute say "You can't borrow anything because you're using a facility we chose to give you".

They took away my OH's overdraft despite him crediting the account with no less than £1,500 PCM without fail, using the OD, never going over his limit, never incurring a penny in charges (bar OD interest) ,etc.

To this date they're unable to explain why.

izools

Lol yeah but used well and they'll have upped it to £3,000 within a couple of years... and upped the APR to 74.9% along with it (they did this with my OH)

never-in-doubt

izools wrote: »

Did you want me to write to their credit referrals team and see if I can get some of this in writing? Could help with your taking it further!

And you're bang on the money, the bank shouldn't say one minute "yeah, have an overdraft" and then the next minute say "You can't borrow anything because you're using a facility we chose to give you".

They took away my OH's overdraft despite him crediting the account with no less than £1,500 PCM without fail, using the OD, never going over his limit, never incurring a penny in charges (bar OD interest) ,etc.

To this date they're unable to explain why.

Hiya

Nah its fine mate - they will not put it in writing, this is the thing - they are getting wise that we will challenge such, you've more chance of seeing gary glitter being offered the role of Santa Clause - the follow up! :rotfl: :rotfl:

Something within it all just doesn't add up really does it? That's why i'm not letting it go, cos it's wrong and they are actually the worst offenders when it comes to unscrupilous lending and collection activity!

I'd sooner they were left to go under, I hate the fact my tax heps support them :mad: :mad: :mad:

izools

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Hiya

Nah its fine mate - they will not put it in writing, this is the thing - they are getting wise that we will challenge such, you've more chance of seeing gary glitter being offered the role of Santa Clause - the follow up! :rotfl: :rotfl:

Something within it all just doesn't add up really does it? That's why i'm not letting it go, cos it's wrong and they are actually the worst offenders when it comes to unscrupilous lending and collection activity!

I'd sooner they were left to go under, I hate the fact my tax heps support them :mad: :mad: :mad:

Little advice if you don't mind?

I currently owe £2,500 ish and my NET monthly income is £1,150.

I repay £225 of my debt each month.

I get income weekly, fortnightly, four weekly, and monthly.

The weekly and fortnightly income goes into my savings account until the 1st of each month when it goes back into my current account.

I am overdrawn for 5~10 days of the month.

I have never incurred a penny in charges.

I personally am confident that this is relatively good running of accounts for someone on a not-so-great income. Do you think this justified a CPD marker on my account?

Do you think if I were to move to say, the Halifax, I would stand a better chance of super-approvals running my accounts in this fashion? (Actually if it was the Halifax I wouldn't want an OD at £1 a day)

If you think LTSB's stance is too stringent and other banks would be less so I'll consider moving.