999 credit score but keep getting rejected!

cbrpaul

Paul_Herring wrote: »

No, you provide a centralised data store whereby legitimate lenders may form an opinion on a potential borrower based on, among other things, that data you provide - which originated at other lenders.

(Absent any systems you may sell to lenders, but then again those systems will (should!) include stuff you don't put into the scores you sell.)

By your own admission previously, the data you use is only a subset of the overall data a lender may use in forming that lender's opinion. How you can manage/measure risk based on only a proportion of data available eludes me.

To yourselves, maybe. To 3rd parties not so much.

For a borrower, how you rate someone is misleading in the extreme as the numerous threads about "999 scores" shows.

For heaven's sake, you've been giving "999" to those without a job! Without savings! There's no way a main-stream lender, of any stripe, would lend a significant amount to such a person.

All anyone appears to have to do to get 999 is (simplistically) is be on the electoral roll, have some borrowing and have never been late with a payment in the past 6 years.

For a lender, your "score" may be a shortcut for them to whittle out the chaf from the wheat, so to speak, but if the numbers you give to lenders are anything like those you dish out to potential borrowers, I think those companies solely using that short-cut are either missing a lot of wheat, or getting lot of chaff.

But that's not how you promote it.

It is inevitably seen (see all the threads about 999'ers getting refused credit) as a cast-iron promise that anyone getting 999 will never be refused credit.

You either need to
1) address that assumption. Clearly, and explicitly say, for example, that


2) stop handing out 999s.


How your company (and the others) can get away with advertising the sale of a "credit score" to the gullible when the credit score in question bears little relationship to any internal credit score a legitimate lender might come up with escapes me.

thankyou for that post !

:T:T:T

theevilfrog

Credit ratings have always been a dark art. Does anyone REALLY know the truth?!

danothy

theevilfrog wrote: »

Credit ratings have always been a dark art. Does anyone REALLY know the truth?!

I do, but I'm not willing to share the information ... mwah ha ha ha

BugsyBrowne

Paul_Herring wrote: »

No, you provide a centralised data store whereby legitimate lenders may form an opinion on a potential borrower based on, among other things, that data you provide - which originated at other lenders.

(Absent any systems you may sell to lenders, but then again those systems will (should!) include stuff you don't put into the scores you sell.)

By your own admission previously, the data you use is only a subset of the overall data a lender may use in forming that lender's opinion. How you can manage/measure risk based on only a proportion of data available eludes me.

To yourselves, maybe. To 3rd parties not so much.

For a borrower, how you rate someone is misleading in the extreme as the numerous threads about "999 scores" shows.

For heaven's sake, you've been giving "999" to those without a job! Without savings! There's no way a main-stream lender, of any stripe, would lend a significant amount to such a person.

All anyone appears to have to do to get 999 is (simplistically) is be on the electoral roll, have some borrowing and have never been late with a payment in the past 6 years.

For a lender, your "score" may be a shortcut for them to whittle out the chaf from the wheat, so to speak, but if the numbers you give to lenders are anything like those you dish out to potential borrowers, I think those companies solely using that short-cut are either missing a lot of wheat, or getting lot of chaff.

But that's not how you promote it.

It is inevitably seen (see all the threads about 999'ers getting refused credit) as a cast-iron promise that anyone getting 999 will never be refused credit.

You either need to
1) address that assumption. Clearly, and explicitly say, for example, that


2) stop handing out 999s.


How your company (and the others) can get away with advertising the sale of a "credit score" to the gullible when the credit score in question bears little relationship to any internal credit score a legitimate lender might come up with escapes me.

That is the best representation of the experian credit scoring system ever been told on this forum :T

BugsyBrowne

danothy wrote: »

I do, but I'm not willing to share the information ... mwah ha ha ha

No one will ever know their true score!!

Paul_Herring

star-fire wrote: »

That is the best representation of the experian credit scoring system ever been told on this forum :T

Sadly, that's how it's likely to remain.

On this forum.

On this thread.

And unread by the vast majority who actually need it.

I have a previous post that mentioned the important bits of that stuff, and I link to it frequently (indeed, I did on this thread earlier.) I'd like to think that's why the Experian Rep posted, but I'm probably being too egotistical about that.

Experian and Equifax are effectively lying, and in such a way that the (toothless) ASA won't do anything. OFT won't do anything because the core reasoning behind credit scoring rely on (essentially) Experian/Equifax.

I'm not sure it's a monopoly on scoring (since there's three of them,) but they (along with CallCredit) sure have an effective monopoly on selling useless numbers to the general public.

You'd be better off buying premium bonds or a 'random numbers' lottery ticket than presuming that the credit score you get - sorry, buy - off these companies has any relevance to the chance you'd get credit off the companies that actually provide credit.

gaz2180

My Experian 'credit score' was 0 last week - yet I applied, and was accepted for, a loan and 2 credit cards since then...

Paul_Herring

gaz2180 wrote: »

My Experian 'credit score' was 0 last week - yet I applied, and was accepted for, a loan and 2 credit cards since then...

I suggest you apply for a ticket in this weeks ThunderBall. Only £1,489 [1] cheaper than a credit score.



[1] Based on, possibly - may be; a year's cost of getting a credit score, and a per month subscription to useless information from them, over a year which isn't remotely visible immediately from their website, against a single ticket on the lottery. Extend that to 10 years and you have a massive saving !!!!one!eleventy.

BugsyBrowne

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Sadly, that's how it's likely to remain.

On this forum.

On this thread.

And unread by the vast majority who actually need it.

I have a previous post that mentioned the important bits of that stuff, and I link to it frequently (indeed, I did on this thread earlier.) I'd like to think that's why the Experian Rep posted, but I'm probably being too egotistical about that.

Experian and Equifax are effectively lying, and in such a way that the (toothless) ASA won't do anything. OFT won't do anything because the core reasoning behind credit scoring rely on (essentially) Experian/Equifax.

I'm not sure it's a monopoly on scoring (since there's three of them,) but they (along with CallCredit) sure have an effective monopoly on selling useless numbers to the general public.

You'd be better off buying premium bonds or a 'random numbers' lottery ticket than presuming that the credit score you get - sorry, buy - off these companies has any relevance to the chance you'd get credit off the companies that actually provide credit.

Couldn't agree more mate they are in a sense effectively lying and something does need to be done about it.

You think of all the people who come on this forum and say the same old thing i've got a 999 credit score but refused credit, just think how many people don't know about this forum and don't realize they are being taking for a mug from Experian.

I just find it scandalous how a company actually has the right to play with peoples believes like this if you know what I mean.

gaz2180

Paul_Herring wrote: »

I suggest you apply for a ticket in this weeks ThunderBall. Only £1,489 [1] cheaper than a credit score.

I might just do that!!

It was part of the 30 day free trial so I didn't pay them for their incredibly accurate scoring system... Needless to say, the subscription was cancelled before I wasted any money.