Rejected by Post Office! Should I appeal? 26 September 2006 at 9:49AM in Stoozing: free cash from credit cards 12 replies 1.7K views

Cyman

Hi,

After successfully stoozing for a couple of years, i've finally hit a bump. The Post Office have turned me down for a (0% balance transfer) credit card.

Apparently, I didn't meet their internal credit score requirements. I've called Experian, and have been told that I have a very good credit history, and that they can't see why my application would have been rejected. Neither can I, as I keep a pretty tight reign on my finances, and have never missed a payment, etc...

As it happens, i've managed to make other financial arrangements, and as I no longer have a balance to transfer, I don't actually need the card anymore. However, i'm a little concerned that next time I apply for a card, i'll have to tick the "Have you ever been turned down for credit before" box.

So, my question is, do you think I should appeal against their decision? Is being rejected a black mark against me? Would it make any difference to my credit history, and affect my ability to get credit in the future?

Or should I just ignore it, and hope that nothing adverse happens when I apply for another card / balance transfer in 6 months?

Your advice, as always, is appreciated.

Cheers,

Cyman

[email protected]

I'd say leave it you've had a good run and with respect mate it's stoozers who've led to BT charges IMO for the rest of us- they obviously know what you've been up to. I reckon you'll have no problem later but if you want to do BT's you're gonna have to pay for them like the rest of us.

paultw5

I applied with them (on-line) having an excellent credit rating a couple of months back. After a couple of weeks recieved 2 different letters rejecting me. Phoned them up and it seemed their system was up the spout, and the customer services person told me, not only had i applied twice, but i put that my salary was £30 a year. She told me to write to them with slips and bills etc, and explain the situation...I never bothered but will have to check my credit ratings soon to see if they are on there....Went with Unison in the end...

Cyman

Tr&#64 wrote: »

I'd say leave it you've had a good run and with respect mate it's stoozers who've led to BT charges IMO for the rest of us- they obviously know what you've been up to. I reckon you'll have no problem later but if you want to do BT's you're gonna have to pay for them like the rest of us.

err...this is the stoozing forum, isn't it? And besides, this site actively promotes stoozing, and also tells you how to do it for free, so you don't actually have to incur any charges.


paultw5...with that sort of system in place, it looks like i'll end up spending a lot of time and hassle...maybe it's not worth it.


The original question was...does being turned down for credit adversely affect future applications.

Anyone...?

hazeyj

I appealed against my rejection as it turned out that experian had my address the wrong way around and also the post office had inputted my details incorrectly.

YorkshireBoy

Cyman wrote:

...does being turned down for credit adversely affect future applications.

I always appeal rejections, and so far I've had a 50% success rate by appealing all four of mine.

However, you need to tell the provider something new. Bear in mind that they've processed your application from both the CRA search and your application form only. Aside from correcting the obvious mistakes (as in the previous posters case), you perhaps want to tell them something about your financial circumstances, eg your savings & investments, the equity you have in your property, etc.

Above all, get across how 'low risk' you are. In doing so, you'll probably need to give them a reason for your existing level of (stoozing) debt. Perhaps you celebrated your wedding anniversary by going on a cruise? Maybe your daughter got married? Have you used credit cards to finance improvements to your property, and then something else cropped up meaning you couldn't clear the balance just yet - without cashing in (and losing out considerably) some long term savings?

Re the effect on your credit worthiness, you must bear in mind that an appeal, providing they don't reject you again because the original reason was a 'policy rule' infringement, will almost certainly result in another credit search. Whilst you may be able to explain away two searches for one card to an underwriter at your next application, excessive searches on your file could result in an automated computer search & score system declining your applications until your credit history settles down again.

One final thought; have you too much available credit? Are you closing down cards when you've finished with them?

Cyman

Yorkshireboy...Thanks for the reply.

Re: old credit cards...yes, I fell into that trap, not realising that having a zero balance, but high credit limit on a few unused cards would count against me. That's why I cancelled most of my cards, and checked via Experian that the accounts had been settled, before applying for the Post Office card. Didn't seem to do much good though.

Have just checked my online Experian report again, and I see that another search was made on it last week. I think it might have been the car insurance search I did using confused.com. That makes 3-4 searches in the last month!

So, I think the best plan, given that I don't actually need this card at the moment, is to lie low until things settle down. Hopefully, I won't need to apply for another card for another 5 months.

I just called 'M&S More' to cancel one of my last remaining cards, and they offered me another 6 month 0% balance transfer! If i'd known they were going to do that, I could have saved myself all of the hassle that i've had with the Post Office, and N&P, and my credit searches would have been negligible.

Hmmmm....stoozing. Looks simple...gets a bit tricky :-/

Cheers,

Cyman

YorkshireBoy

Cyman wrote:

Have just checked my online Experian report again, and I see that another search was made on it last week. I think it might have been the car insurance search I did using confused.com. That makes 3-4 searches in the last month!

Don't worry about 'car insurance' searches.

If they're of the ID verification, money laundering, or quotation type, they're classed as 'unrecorded enquiries' and, as such, are not even seen by lenders when searching your file for credit providing purposes.

Only yourself and the CRA can see unrecorded enquiries on your file.

More information in Experian's Your credit report explained booklet.

JollyNolly

Tr&#64 wrote: »

I'd say leave it you've had a good run and with respect mate it's stoozers who've led to BT charges IMO for the rest of us- they obviously know what you've been up to. I reckon you'll have no problem later but if you want to do BT's you're gonna have to pay for them like the rest of us.

Can't really see how stoozing can have been responsible for this - more likely to have been due to people claiming unfair charges and the OFT ruling, I would have thought.

YorkshireBoy

JollyNolly wrote:

Can't really see how stoozing can have been responsible for this...

It wasn't. With £56bn of UK credit card debt, and growing, the providers now realise that they have a captive audience. People handling 'real' debt are not making any great inroads into that debt (even when they're given 0% on existing debt, they carry on spending new money) - simply tarting around from lender to lender. Stoozers have simply jumped on the bandwagon, and IMHO must be outnumbered by debt-handling rate tarts by many 1000's to one.

...more likely to have been due to people claiming unfair charges and the OFT ruling, I would have thought.

I don't believe this was the sole reason - more the straw that broke the camel's back.

However, looking on the bright side, there will always be one lender who chooses to 'break rank' in a search to increase it's customer base (didn't Egg start the 0% offers in 1999?). And there will always be other ways to 'beat the system' for stoozers - only this week a possible stoozing loophole was spotted with M&S travellers cheques.

Cyman

Yorkshireboy...

"only this week a possible stoozing loophole was spotted with M&S travellers cheques."


Really? Linky?