Credit Card Application Ombudsman

leetabix

opinions4u wrote: »

Post no. 5.

Ok - to be technically correct I should've said 'is to help the regulation of' rather than 'to regulate' . But other than that, I think the statement is correct, no?

leetabix

Thanks for the further responses all - I'll form some replies tomorrow (day at the office followed by a 4.5 hour commute = one tired James), I partially agree with some of the points made above, completely agree with others, and there's a few which again I think have missed the mark (or have repeated arguments used in previous posts which I've already responded to/rebuted).

Night all, will update with responses tomorrow - although in terms of the original thread's context, I think we're not outside that completely by furthering the discussion as I now know that the FCA seems to be the most suitable body to comment on this (I know there's the point around their coverage (or lack thereof) on CC issues, but I'm going to have a further root around in the approach document and ask them to confirm this (thanks for the spot on this btw).

thegoodman

It is also worth adding that, the government can bring in a tax of 1% on card purchases. Use this money to offer the card to people who have decline by private companies via job centre or something like that. No need to increase the NI ref my other post. The cost to run the system is paid by the card tax. This will help people with the credit history. Also non profit so decline rate will be very small.

I think it is very unlikey to happen to force the private banks to give more credit mainly to customers already decline unless the government take the responsibility of non payments. The banks and cards operate within the uk law but also to make profit.

I know the op is not about what system to use, it is for who to report the changes.

However write to FCA just to say you should force all cards companies to show the lending criteria and if decline each case can have a manual review and the card company can be forced to give credit is one thing. However if you also show them how it can be funded, benefits to people, help families who are otherwise unable to get the credit, improve credit marks etc will improve the case a lot. If you make it sound like want to make it difficult for card companies to decline without pro cons is not going to get you far.
Martin Lewis got a lot of credit because he wanted to make the change to way products were sold, people paid money each month to have a product such as ppi and insurance, not force cards to give more credit. I don't think he was to take this on the way you have said in the past post will lead to anything. However if you show benefits than the government may look into it as long as more people are not going to fall into debt.

I think information is available to try to change the law to help the people who have been decline or can't get the credit. It is a very nice cause taken by leetabix

chattychappy

thegoodman wrote: »

It is also worth adding that, the government can bring in a tax of 1% on card purchases. Use this money to offer the card to people who have decline by private companies

What? 1% of my CC spend will go to help poor people get credit that private lenders aren't willing to offer?

Can't agree with that, however well intentioned.

thegoodman

chattychappy wrote: »

What? 1% of my CC spend will go to help poor people get credit that private lenders aren't willing to offer?

Can't agree with that, however well intentioned.

I don't agree with this as well but as per op if card companies are forced to give credit to decline application than fund need to be created, so either can be used for non payment or the government offer the card to people who can't get one via private route. Use 1% card tax to pay for run and non payment.

I have said the above because I don't think anyone can force the card companies to give more credit.

If op was to come true what about other products such as 0% offers must be done in a group. If one person get it than all in that group get it.

Also what about store cards, credit limits, loan etc all need to work in the same frame. Othwerwise I can already see a way around the OP. If the card company is forced to give the card, it will do it for £50.00 limit and very high APR. Apart from the show to say see what card I have it would not be much use. Limits, APR, 0% offers etc also need to be grouped as well. So if one person get the increase / decrease in limit all within that credit group get it.

That's why I think 1% tax to run the credit card via job centre is the best.

The op is trying to help people who can't get credit otherwise so it is a good cause.

izools

thegoodman wrote: »

Banks would need to release private information such as amunt of funds available for credit etc to public. If decline is due to maximum funds used than it would need to put a public notice to say product not available

I must say, this part of the OP's suggestions I do somewhat agree with.

If a creditor has totalled their available funds to lend for a given period and will decline applications until the next period (month, quarter, etc), no problem.

What I do, however, disagree with is a creditor leaving a footprint on the applicant's credit file when there was no way in hell of them being granted the facility anyway.

Decline them stating the reason as a "Business Decision" (I've had this given as a reason to me in the past) on the decline letter sure but don't leave a footprint on their credit file.

I do wonder sometimes whether creditors will refer 100 applications and then lend out to the top 10 scorers once the applications are in.

Again, fine, but leave a soft search on their file if they've run out of cash for the month / quarter, not a full footprint.

thegoodman

I think op have a hump about decline by Amex. Trying to chane the system to wind up Amex. I bet he is forwarding them to Amex going on about I told you and I will do this and that I will change the law etc without thinking.
If someone try to disagree than go on about how this is outside the scope and I am only asking where to report. If this was the case than why answer other post. If Amex is reading his post must be laughing at him.

chattychappy

I don't think searches should be recorded anyway. I appreciate that one purpose is to stop people "going on a spree". Beyond that it doesn't reflect on someone's situation. This purpose could be addressed by the more prompt recording of new credit granted.

Eonel

I see potential in the idea. It opens up the possibility of getting compensation when we are mis-declined a credit card.....

thegoodman

Make sense. For every misdecline the card company will pay £500 and also using their money give credit card. I think this will sort out Amex and other card companies. I think op is mad to come up sometime like this. The op is mixed up between the benefits and credit. If you meet certain points you get it. The credit is not your money so no one can force the bank to give you credit using their money.
I hope he has passed the link to Amex, might not get the card for every now.