Experian Credit score

lisyloo

Which begs the question why would you pay for an idea of your score? You can get the data the idea is based on for less and can probably get a better idea from that.

The above is only true if you have an understanding of how the data is interpreted by organisations.

I paid (a small fee) for my rating (only £3.50 for rating and report) and learned a few things I didn't know.

I didn't realise for example that I was marked down for having moved house 18 months ago (not a lot I can do about it).

I also didn't realise that I was marked down for having a credit account at a previous address. I can take steps to correct that.

So, I don't think it's just as simple as looking at your report.
Some things (like defaults and CCJs) might be obvious that they are a problem, but other more subtle things are not necessarily obvious to everyone (not to me anyway).

Having the rating pointed out a few things to me which I might not have noticed without it.
I am well aware that the same system may not be used by lenders but nevetheless I found it helpful (woulnd't have paid a lot for it though - but as it was only £3.50 with the report then I tried it).

mrtickle

Same sentiments here. I only did it because of the relatively cheap £3.50 link which thankfully still worked.

I've learned that being on the Rolling Electoral Register is not the same as being on the Annual Electoral Register, and during the first year after moving house I appeared to be off the Register completely because some searches (including Equifax's own Scoring system!) only look at the Annual Register. I now have a Notice of Correction on my record spelling out that I AM on the Rolling Register and why.

I also found out on the main record that a correction I did in May - Orange still had me down at my old address despite sending bills to new address - not only hasn't been carried through, but they are still updating the record at my old address. So I have been able to kick up a stink about this too.

moana

IMO these Credit Agencies need some proper control from government.
If you aren't aware of them as probably most of the British population aren't or have never checked your score or rating, then these agencies can govern your lives and you have no control over them because you have no idea they exist.

Not only that but the factors they use are unfair on some of the population and aren't logical in other instances, some of which are noted above.
Is there an actuarial basis to them.

My rating was excellent or v good, can't remember, at Experian so I've no grouse directly.

But my score should have been higher than the 845 it was as I've always paid credit cards off in full on time and had two mortgages both of which I paid off before even one third of the term was up.

The government IMO should institute something more professional.

Galstonian

CRAs are extremely tightly regulated, do you have a suggestion of how they could be more professional?

moana

Well they should have to send details of everyone's rating and score to the person concerned by post, not leave it up to us to check.
The ratings and scores govern certain aspects of our lives so we should be actively told what they are not as now things left in a passive way.

And if anyone is turned down for credit then a detailed explanation should be given not just 'your ratings weren't up to it'.

It may mean more 'work' but most of that can be generated automatically.

Suzz_2

I would agree that people should be told specifically why, when turned down for credit.

I've been turned down just once - a Cahoot card, quite a few years ago now. I think it was one of the first that approved your application instantly online.

When I queried the rejection, Cahoot say its because of your Experien report; Experien say that they don't make the decisions, only supply the data.

Galstonian

Moana, I'm afraid I disagree.  These ratings govern aspects of our lives that we choose.  Primarily the only user of this data is the finance industry and then only the parts of it that lend money. They are credit histories after all. The next biggest I'd guess is probably mobile phones.

If you are turned down you are told you can get more information from the credit reference agencies, the simple fact is many people who might have an interest in doing so don't.

It may mean more 'cost' which is possibly why its not done now.

As for your earlier suggestion that their criteria are somehow unfair on some sectors of the population and ask firstly what is unfair and secondly, why does it have to be fair?  The data is used to assess credit worthiness and risk - just how can that be unfair?

Galstonian

I would agree that people should be told specifically why, when turned down for credit.

I've been turned down just once - a Cahoot card, quite a few years ago now.  I think it was one of the first that approved your application instantly online.

When I queried the rejection, Cahoot say its because of your Experien report; Experien say that they don't make the decisions, only supply the data.

So did you go and get the data that they used to check it was all correct?

moana

I think I meant 'unfair' because MOST of the UK population don't own a computer so are in effect disenfranchised.

Lots of info isn'tavailable to them, for no fault of their own in many cases, because the outlay on a computer is not possible for them.

Suzz_2

So did you go and get the data that they used to check it was all correct?

Yes I did - this was the first time I had ordered (or even heard of) credit reports.

It was all correct. So I still didn't know why I had been turned down. The only reason I could think of were too may searches - I had applied for a few cards before that - can't remember how many, this was about 5 years ago, maybe 3 or 4 in the last 6 months; also, perhaps significantly I had taken out my mortgage earlier that year..

As I remember, I applied for another card a few weeks later (to see of I'd been 'black-listed' across the board..) and was accepted & given the highest credit limit I'd ever been given to date.