Credit scores

Plummer

My Experian credit score is 975, excellent yet with Equifax it is 344, poor. Can anybody explain why this should be?
Does this happen often?

Both credit histories are correct. Equifax seems to hold more data.

gb12345

Plummer wrote: »

My Experian credit score is 975, excellent yet with Equifax it is 344, poor. Can anybody explain why this should be?
Does this happen often?

Both credit histories are correct. Equifax seems to hold more data.

Because credit scores are irrelevant meaningless numbers and this just goes to prove it.

Any lender you apply to will not see the score, just the credit history, which they will use (together with additional information such as salary etc.) to underwrite your application.

[Deleted User]

Plummer wrote: »

My Experian credit score is 975, excellent yet with Equifax it is 344, poor. Can anybody explain why this should be?

At least your scores are in the hundreds. My score with Noddle is only 5.

CherlokHomes

My score with Experian is -789 extremely terrible!
My score with Equifax is 768 Super Brilliant!
My score with Noddle is 10/12 nearly better!

Simon7685

My score with Noddle last month went up from 3/5 to 4/5......
This month it has gone back down to 3/5.........
I have done nothing, no new credit, nothing different at all yet it goes down.
Why???
because it's all a load of boll...........ocks!!! Think of a number add 10 subtract 200, multiply by 6, divide by 7.2 and if its sunny outside give 20 bonus points. If it's raining charge £15 a month for the results!

bigadaj

There seem to be a lot of these threads, I wonder if this is related to martins shameful performance on Friday giving James jones and his cronies credibility for their misleading credit score sales when everyone knows they are useless?

CherlokHomes

James jones is a loon who never answers Questions that are pointed towards him especially on here!

matttye

bigadaj wrote: »

There seem to be a lot of these threads, I wonder if this is related to martins shameful performance on Friday giving James jones and his cronies credibility for their misleading credit score sales when everyone knows they are useless?

If you watched the whole show you'd have seen that he actually said they're good for giving a 'rough indication' as to one's creditworthiness but that, because there's no application and they have no history about you (like your own bank would), they're not the be all and end all.

I agree. The scores are based on what is contained within your credit report, so clearly do give a rough indication.

MoneySaverLog

Yes spends all of 10 seconds saying that which could easily have got missed then spends the rest of the show giving credence to a random number generator. It's misleading and worthy of a complaint to ofcom

matttye

MoneySaverLog wrote: »

Yes spends all of 10 seconds saying that which could easily have got missed then spends the rest of the show giving credence to a random number generator. It's misleading and worthy of a complaint to ofcom

He's talking about how to improve the score, not saying that the score goes hand in hand with creditworthiness. He goes into detail about how the girl with a score of 999 still can't get credit because lenders don't know enough about her.

If anything, he demonstrates that it should be used as a rough guideline and gives examples as to why it doesn't go hand in hand with acceptance.

CherlokHomes

matttye wrote: »

He's talking about how to improve the score, not saying that the score goes hand in hand with creditworthiness. He goes into detail about how the girl with a score of 999 still can't get credit because lenders don't know enough about her.

If anything, he demonstrates that it should be used as a rough guideline and gives examples as to why it doesn't go hand in hand with acceptance.

Don't agree!

Martin lewis said their scores was a guidance on their credit worthiness yes, at this point he looked mystified when the bird pulled a 999 and he replied this means they don't know nothing about you yes.
So if Martin says no credit history means bad why didn't Experian's score reflect this in their scoring and give the bird a very poor?

The show should be reported to ofcom