Increased credit card use and credit rating

BillJones

a4a wrote: »

I don't understand why I am under attack for providing people with hard facts rather than just an opinion with no substance to it.

It's because you are disingenuously hammering away at a subject with twisted facts to try to get people to come around to your incorrect view.

You demand proof from people stating commonly accepted facts, and respond with google links to irrelevant articles talking about something that is not quite the point under discussion.

Lenders are not using the CRA's "credit score" to make lending decisions. Are you trying to suggest that they do, which is what people are arguing against, or are you trying to prove something different, but close enough that you get to claim a "win"?

a4a

BillJones wrote: »

It's because you are disingenuously hammering away at a subject with twisted facts to try to get people to come around to your incorrect view.

You demand proof from people stating commonly accepted facts, and respond with google links to irrelevant articles talking about something that is not quite the point under discussion.

Lenders are not using the CRA's "credit score" to make lending decisions. Are you trying to suggest that they do, which is what people are arguing against, or are you trying to prove something different, but close enough that you get to claim a "win"?

I'm not really bothered about proving my point but I will defend myself.

Firstly I am not using twisted facts and am not responding with google links to irrelevant articles, I am taking information from CRA's websites. If people believe they are wrong, then why don;t they take that up with them? I am just showing people what CRA's say to their customers (i.e. lenders) and finally yes, I am suggesting that lenders use CRA's "credit scores" to make a 'partial' lending decision when carrying out soft searches.

I do not see what is wrong with me saying any of the above, surely this is a free and open debate and I am not telling people that they must take my opinion.

I am not here to make any 'win', I am here to openly discuss viewpoints but sadly some people seem to feel I MUST accept their answer otherwise I am a troll or spammer.

bigadaj

a4a wrote: »

I'm not really bothered about proving my point but I will defend myself.

Firstly I am not using twisted facts and am not responding with google links to irrelevant articles, I am taking information from CRA's websites. If people believe they are wrong, then why don;t they take that up with them? I am just showing people what CRA's say to their customers (i.e. lenders) and finally yes, I am suggesting that lenders use CRA's "credit scores" to make a 'partial' lending decision when carrying out soft searches.

I do not see what is wrong with me saying any of the above, surely this is a free and open debate and I am not telling people that they must take my opinion.

I am not here to make any 'win', I am here to openly discuss viewpoints but sadly some people seem to feel I MUST accept their answer otherwise I am a troll or spammer.

What is wrong with you saying this is that it's misleading to people who don't know any better, you are potentially encouraging them to pay for a useless score that is not used by any mainstream lender.

The simple credit report is fine but only for the information and certainly not the score.

Unfortunately you seem to have taken the cras advertising as fact when it's simply misleading giving the impression that lenders use their scores when they don't they only use the actual records and information received.

Thrugelmir

a4a wrote: »

Fundamentally though, I think the CRA's have a lot to answer for and I believe that because there is no real competition and effectively a monopoly, then they are reluctant to invest in a more modern and sophisticated system.

Then you are totally out of touch with the datasets that lenders have access to. Which they they then process through their own algorithms to determine whether a borrower meets the criteria.

Technology is far ahead of what people realise. Further refinements are the way too. Much in response to the FCA's drive for responsible and affordable lending. So far in terms of credit, it's been Mortgages, Payday Lending and Overdrafts. Credit cards one suspects is going to be on the scale of mortgage regulation.

There's significant change coming down the tracks.

a4a

bigadaj wrote: »

What is wrong with you saying this is that it's misleading to people who don't know any better, you are potentially encouraging them to pay for a useless score that is not used by any mainstream lender.

The simple credit report is fine but only for the information and certainly not the score.

Unfortunately you seem to have taken the cras advertising as fact when it's simply misleading giving the impression that lenders use their scores when they don't they only use the actual records and information received.

Thats because you believe, like many others, that lenders don't look at the CRA's scores.

If you believe that CRA's advertising is misleading then report it to trading standards.

a4a

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Then you are totally out of touch with the datasets that lenders have access to. Which they they then process through their own algorithms to determine whether a borrower meets the criteria.

Technology is far ahead of what people realise. Further refinements are the way too. Much in response to the FCA's drive for responsible and affordable lending. So far in terms of credit, it's been Mortgages, Payday Lending and Overdrafts. Credit cards one suspects is going to be on the scale of mortgage regulation.

There's significant change coming down the tracks.

Sorry, I don't understand. What datasets? If you are talking about lenders datasets I'm not, I'm talking about CRA's.

As for lenders algorithms I'm not talking about them either but your very point about technology being far ahead is exactly my point, but CRA's don't seem to want to acknowledge that.

If there is change ahead, thats great but I was referring to whats in place now

NPHammer

Cor Blimey Guvnor.

For the sake of a4a you should understand that this board is home to many people, who based on their own experience have learnt that the scores provided by the CRAs are next to useless in determining your own credit worthiness.

I personally at one point had an Experian score of excellent of around 970 with 2 defaults on my file. Almost any applications for any of the best credit card and loan offers would automatically be rejected by lenders due to the 2 defaults - despite Experians score telling me how excellently credit worthy I was.

As others have tried to explain to you the score is not important to lenders the data behind it is.

Additionally CRA scores do not take into account some things that are very important to lenders. 2 key ones being debt to income ratio, and your residential status.

This is how it works. These are facts. You can convince yourself otherwise as much as you like but it will only be to your own detriment.

bigadaj

a4a wrote: »

Thats because you believe, like many others, that lenders don't look at the CRA's scores.

If you believe that CRA's advertising is misleading then report it to trading standards.

No need, I know I it's useless as many others on here have told you. You can decide its worthwhile to you, it's a free country and if you want to pay money for a useless score no one is going to stop you, give me £20 and I'll give you a score of 100000 if you want, far higher than anything that experian. Equifax or noddle will supply, and consequently better value.

My problem is stop saying this as others will believe you, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you work for or benefit from kick backs from the cras .

a4a

bigadaj wrote: »

No need, I know I it's useless as many others on here have told you. You can decide its worthwhile to you, it's a free country and if you want to pay money for a useless score no one is going to stop you, give me £20 and I'll give you a score of 100000 if you want, far higher than anything that experian. Equifax or noddle will supply, and consequently better value.

My problem is stop saying this as others will believe you, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you work for or benefit from kick backs from the cras .

I haven't stopped laughing and will continue to do so.

I've just got home from court having since drunk a lot of champagne.

I'm not sure if I can name the judge, suffice to say I won my case :j