MSE News: Lowest-ever loan from Sainsbury's fires up price war

Consumerist

JuicyJesus wrote: »

You should be more incensed that Experian bill you 15 quid a month for a pointless number and access to a credit report you can legally get for £2.

Absolutely right.

It is disappointing that it's so hard to get people to understand the complete and utter waste of money Experian's credit ratings really are.

JuicyJesus

Consumerist wrote: »

Absolutely right.

It is disappointing that it's so hard to get people to understand the complete and utter waste of money Experian's credit ratings really are.

Well, guess what comes up when you Google for "credit score"... and people are largely ignorant about what credit reference agencies actually do, which doesn't help.

Pincher

Never had a personal loan in this country. Virgin MBNA is almost always offering me 0% Balance Transfer, or transfer to a current account, for 2% Fee. Got the Barclaycard Platinum card offer last year, 11% cashback on purchase up to £100, and 20 months 0% BT for 3% Fee (equivalent to 2% for 12 months). In July 2013, flip it to Virgin MBNA.

The Nationwide Online ISA is 3.1% and instant access, so it's cost neutral, or I can use the money for 2% interest.

Fairway871

Actually guys I do get it. I dont pay Experian by the way so I am not upset with them at all. it is the random way that lenders go about their business that upsets me. Do you really think that by publishing their criteria it will encourage more fraudulent applications. The "fraudsters" are more cute than that my friends. The banking sector is in the mess that it is because it has lent to borrowers who cannot afford to repay. It is offensive that someone like me, who can afford it, is lumped in with the others who have not got the sense to know what they can afford. EG I am 63 years old, have a regular and substantial income with NO prospect of that income stopping or reducing, have never had a late or failed payment, have been with one bank 35 years and another 1 year.I am on the electoral role. I have been at my present address for 18 months and my previous one 20 years. My credit score is perfect. It is difficult to see what more I can do to reassure lenders. However, Sainsburys, bless 'em, queried my previous address because their system wrongly assigned the postcode to an incomplete address.

Consumerist

Glad to hear you don't pay Experian for their "credit score" and I see where you're coming from regarding the other aspects of your credit record.

I suspect that the decision was made by a computer and Sainsbury's staff dare not challenge what the computer tells them. The probable truth is that there is nothing you can do to change the situation but it might be worth your while to see if you can sort out the problem regarding your previous address.

JuicyJesus

Fairway871 wrote: »

Actually guys I do get it. I dont pay Experian by the way so I am not upset with them at all. it is the random way that lenders go about their business that upsets me.

It's not random. If anything it's perfectly systematised.

Do you really think that by publishing their criteria it will encourage more fraudulent applications. The "fraudsters" are more cute than that my friends.

Yes, it would. Publishing all their criteria would allow people to modify their applications to meet those criteria.

The banking sector is in the mess that it is because it has lent to borrowers who cannot afford to repay. It is offensive that someone like me, who can afford it, is lumped in with the others who have not got the sense to know what they can afford.

The people who couldn't afford to repay mostly thought they could afford to repay too. Then they couldn't.

Anyway, they did think you could afford to repay. You just didn't get the representative rate. You got 1% above it, which is still an excellent rate these days.

Consumerist

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Anyway, they did think you could afford to repay. You just didn't get the representative rate. You got 1% above it, which is still an excellent rate these days.

That seems pretty random to me.

I think the banks' objective is simply to provide the minimum 51% of loans at the advertised rate in order to suck in as many applications as possible for lending at higher rates.

Fairway871

JuicyJesus wrote: »

It's not random. If anything it's perfectly systematised.

Perfect would not be the word I would use.



Yes, it would. Publishing all their criteria would allow people to modify their applications to meet those criteria.

Which is not what they do now, of course:(



The people who couldn't afford to repay mostly thought they could afford to repay too. Then they couldn't.

But apparently the lenders thought they could too, then they didn't

Anyway, they did think you could afford to repay. You just didn't get the representative rate. You got 1% above it, which is still an excellent rate these days.

Excellent for who, me or the bank?:(

Fairway871

As an addition that I did not see in the small print, you must be a Nectar Card Holder ( which I am) and have had your card swiped in store or online ( which I haven't unless you count Homebase) to qualify for the 5.4% rate.
MSE Helen please note...this, I would suggest, significantly affects the number of potental applicants who will realise the eye catching rate
Dont think that Derbyshire loan rate has any "hidden" criteria like that so, generally is the better deal. Comparison must be like for like I would suggest

JuicyJesus

Consumerist wrote: »

That seems pretty random to me.

I think the banks' objective is simply to provide the minimum 51% of loans at the advertised rate in order to suck in as many applications as possible for lending at higher rates.

You mean to say they comply with the legal obligation to offer the advertised rate to at least 51% of applicants?

How awful.