Noddle Credit Score

The_Boss

a4a wrote: »

You are absolutely right but unfortunately missing my whole point.

I agree with your synopsis here completely and that is why I am trying to get my point across. You keep saying they are meaningless, I say they are not.

They may be wrong and inaccurate but they are certainly not meaningless. I believe more than ever now, having read pages and pages of CRA sites and having listened to someone who worked for a lender, that these scores ARE used by lenders, therefore they are not meaningless.

In some cases they are accurate and in others they aren't. Looking through a number of threads, the biggest issue seems to be when someone has no credit and is given a 999 score.

I believe they are used by lenders carrying out a soft search and until anyone can prove to me otherwise, I will stick with that theory for now. You keep referring to other issues such as income etc and again I completely agree but this is based on a full application and I keep saying that I believe these scores are based on a soft or initial search basis.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with the problem that lenders (in some cases) are looking at information that (again in some cases) is not correct.

I don't know what the % of accuracy is, but I suspect its more accurate than not but the problem lies in that there is sufficient inaccurate information out there and that is a concern.

The reason I am so interested in this, is that I am building a much bigger picture of the way CRA's handle information and how outdated their systems are.

And you are missing my point, perhaps from being too easily influenced by the CRAs.

So for the final time...

Just because Experian etc sell scoring matrices to lenders, it doesnt mean that their "scores" paid for by the public use the same matrix. Therefore, the scores on the CRA files would not be the same as the lenders are sold by Experian because the scoring matrix built by Experian would not score in the same way as the Experian public scores.

There's not much else to say, so I'm not going to. And if you still want to argue with the above (again) then you can only be trolling.

a4a

The_Boss wrote: »

And you are missing my point, perhaps from being too easily influenced by the CRAs.

So for the final time...

Just because Experian etc sell scoring matrices to lenders, it doesnt mean that their "scores" paid for by the public use the same matrix. Therefore, the scores on the CRA files would not be the same as the lenders are sold by Experian because the scoring matrix built by Experian would not score in the same way as the Experian public scores.

There's not much else to say, so I'm not going to. And if you still want to argue with the above (again) then you can only be trolling.

I am not arguing I am discussing but it is clear that you are the boss and if someone doesnt accept your opinion then they they are either a spammer, a troll or an argumentative person.

It''s a great shame that you simply refuse to accept anyone else's opinion, so I too will finish discussing this with you suffice to say you cannot show any evidence as to why CRA's would use one score for lenders and another for consumers which is quite frankly absurd and would be an extremely expensive exercise for them but hey ho.

I will however continue putting my opinion on this matter across to other members as I think they need to hear both sides.

The_Boss

That's easily answered by their use of the word "bespoke" for the lenders matrices. Different lenders have different criteria. It's not something "one size fits all" like the CRA's incomplete scores.

I was always open minded but 7 years of evidence has changed that whereas you have come on here with an agenda and a determination to only collate information to support your agenda. I have no issue with discussion, but I do with constant rhetoric when trying to build your case and discredit others, and with having to discuss the same thing in multiple places.

a4a

As I said before, I do not wish to discuss this with you anymore. You clearly do not want to listen to anyone else's opinions. Because you have been on here longer than me, you clearly know more about the industry despite me having background knowledge and providing information to back up my opinion.

BillJones

a4a wrote: »

Why are so many people fixated with believing CRA credit scores are made up numbers?

Because, as has been patiently explained to you several times now, no one number is a sufficiently useful metric for deciding whether to extend any particular customer credit for any particular reason.

The events that lead to person A having a higher score than person B may still lead a company to prefer to lend to B rather than A. This is why the number is referred to as "made up", as companies will always refer to the actual events listed in the file, not a credit agency's subjective scoring of these events.

BillJones

a4a wrote: »

Because you have been on here longer than me, you clearly know more about the industry despite me having background knowledge and providing information to back up my opinion.

Wow. So you admit that they know more than you on this subject, yet still want to push your agenda?

Are you drunk?

a4a

I honestly do get that and fully understand it.

I also agree that lenders may not take notice (although some may) but I don't agree that they are 'made up', especially because as you correctly say they are based on 'a credit agency's **** scoring of these events'. I have taken out the word subjective as this means influenced by personal feelings and I'm not sure computers have many feelings (that was a bit of light heartedness before anyone jumps down my throat).

As I have said several times before, I really am not trying to be argumentative, i am trying to be constructive. I have found information on CRA's websites that imply that lenders do (or can) use CRA's scores and as I have stated elsewhere, I agree that these scores are not always correct, which means lenders are looking at wrong information if they use them, which is quite worrying.

1DayAAT

My Noddle has never gone below 4/5 but recently when I paid off a Tesco loan early, it hopped to 5/5 where it has stayed ever since. I have nothing negative on my file at all and never have - two perfectly serviced credit cards, a couple of loans in the past that have been settled and one still running, a mortgage paid off from a previous property I sold and a Vodafone contract running - never ever missed or been late on any payment, to anyone ever - I'd like a 6/5 ;););)

a4a

1DayAAT wrote: »

My Noddle has never gone below 4/5 but recently when I paid off a Tesco loan early, it hopped to 5/5 where it has stayed ever since. I have nothing negative on my file at all and never have - two perfectly serviced credit cards, a couple of loans in the past that have been settled and one still running, a mortgage paid off from a previous property I sold and a Vodafone contract running - never ever missed or been late on any payment, to anyone ever - I'd like a 6/5 ;););)

Well done you. Nice to see, like me, you have a CRA "credit" score that correctly corresponds with your circumstances.

Tixy

I do actually agree that credit reference agency scores are not totally meaningless. They do give a quick snapshot of how a theoretical potential lender may view a person's credit file and credit history.

But they are not alone indicative as to whether someone is likely to be accepted for credit in general or a specific credit product or what products/rates they may get accepted for.

There are hundreds, probably thousands, of posts on here where people have written that they have X credit score and therefore cannot understand why they have been declined for credit.
Therefore it is sensible for people to explain to them that this number is not indicative of their chance of being accepted for credit as it only attempts to assess a small part of what any potential lender will consider when making a decision. And even then it does not take in to account a specific lender's criteria.
Its also worth pointing out to posters that paying for these scores is therefore nearly always a waste of money and that they would be better getting copies of their £2 reports and reviewing the raw data on them (obviously the noddle rating is free so that last part doesn't apply but its still important that people understand that there is no point being fixated on the ratinga alone).