Noddle Credit Score

a4a

Tixy wrote: »

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).

Thank you for this and I agree with your comments.

My point has been that the scores are not meaningless and should not necessarily be ignored but I also agree people should not take them as proof either way of whether or not they will get credit.

I do believe they are used however in soft searches as I have said many times, I think this is where they play a role. However, I also agree that the scores can be wrong and this is where they can be misleading.

I also do not believe all scores are wrong. Yes there are plenty of people complaining (quite rightly) that they have a 999 score and cannot get credit but we do not know how many peoples scores are a correct reflection of their circumstances.

I also agree that it is worthwhile that it is worth pointing out to people that they should not take these scores as gospel and they should look in detail at their credit file and also think about their own personal circumstances when applying, i.e. income etc.

My biggest gripe is that CRA's are providing (in some instances) inaccurate information to lenders.

Tixy

I do believe they are used however in soft searches as I have said many times, I think this is where they play a role.

A soft search also requires people to input their employment status and income. I am not convinced that soft searches use the score that consumers see themselves (e.g. for me noddle 5/5) I believe they are based on a more in depth assessment of a persons credit file.

Tixy

My biggest gripe is that CRA's are providing (in some instances) inaccurate information to lenders.

CRAs record and report information that has been provided to them for a variety of sources. In the massive majority of instances if there is inaccurate information on a person's credit file this is due to information that a lender/credit provider has provided to the credit reference agency.

a4a

Tixy wrote: »

A soft search also requires people to input their employment status and income. I am not convinced that soft searches use the score that consumers see themselves (e.g. for me noddle 5/5) I believe they are based on a more in depth assessment of a persons credit file.

Yes this is true although by 'grabbing' the CRA 'credit' score it enables the lender to make a quick initial decision, which saves them time and money, the point being their score is used.

I don't know whether they are the same score or not but I would find it surprising if they weren't. The CRA's brag about their scorecards and how sophisticated they are and the time and effort put into creating them and one assumes a certain level of investment is needed to set them up, so I'm not sure why they would use two different scoring systems but its quite possible they may do.

As a customer (lender) though, I think I would ask this question and if it was that they used two scores I would ask why, so I think it would be a dangerous game for them to play. I also think that the scores are used by lenders making enquiries to CRA's to give them databases of people who fit certain criteria so that they can market their products to them. If they used two different scoring systems they would provide lenders (their customers) with inaccurate lists.

I know I have been criticised for using this, but I have been told by someone who worked for a lender till quite recently they do use the scores that we see and I have no reason to doubt them.

a4a

Tixy wrote: »

CRAs record and report information that has been provided to them for a variety of sources. In the massive majority of instances if there is inaccurate information on a person's credit file this is due to information that a lender/credit provider has provided to the credit reference agency.

Yes agreed, in terms of payments but if the CRA's scoring system is wrong in some instances and if lenders are using this, then there is a problem.

Tixy

The CRA's brag about their scorecards and how sophisticated they are and the time and effort put into creating them and one assumes a certain level of investment is needed to set them up, so I'm not sure why they would use two different scoring systems but its quite possible they may do.

The noddle score? Only 6* possible categories for the 40million or so people in the adult population? I'd be frankly amazed if a soft search assessed a person's credit file based on that.

* the 6 assumes its possible to get 0/5, I am not sure if it is.

a4a

Tixy wrote: »

The noddle score? Only 6* possible categories for the 40million or so people in the adult population? I'd be frankly amazed if a soft search assessed a person's credit file based on that.

* the 6 assumes its possible to get 0/5, I am not sure if it is.

Fair point, although personally I don't have a lot of time for Noddle, always found them a bit strange. Having said that, without looking, the 0 -5/5 is a free score or rating (or even category) they provide but you can pay, I believe, to get a different score or rating from them which I think goes from 0 -1000.

angelstar11970

My Noddle is a 1/5 quite please with that I thought it maybe -10 or something.

Krifsti

Provided all the other info is up-to-date and correct I just ignore it.

pjfowkes

ive got all three, I don't fixate on scores and only apply for credit I am likely to be accepted for. currently rebuilding my battered credit history and I agree with nothing you have said. Those scores are meaningless as it has been stated time and time again thy are a snapshot into an individuals credit worthiness at that time. Considering most information is updated monthly and takes a while for new credit agreements to be loaded onto one of three, all three, or 2 of 3 it is impossible to ascertain credit worthiness from an individual without knowing all 3 scores and ratings and then I would imagine the algorithm used is a simple one, to give you your score. But each lender has different rules and scores to qualify for products. So to say those scores are gospel truth or have any meaning is on the face of it ridiculous. The actual credit details are I believe what they look at, same as for fraudulent applications, you do not get this from a score. How is it you can be declined by one lender but accepted by another if what you are saying is true? It is the lenders own specific scoring that decides how you fare, and a lot of this stuff is basic stuff available on here. IE. Long term stability in home and employment, Electoral Roll, Land lines instead of mobiles, Existing credit accounts in good order. I have a score of 1/5 with noddle atm, due to be updated today and I expect a big jump, and Experian and Equifax are all in the region of fair , but I have 3 new credit agreements and being registered on the electoral roll to add on. Add to that I have one default which is managed by the original creditor I expect to see my ratings change. If what I believe to be true in the space of one month of one default being marked as settled, and one dropping off as well as the new accounts and registering on the electoral roll and following the rules as stated on here, I expect my scores will show this. It is a ridiculous notion that someone becomes more credit worthy in that short space of time but the targeted products being sent to me are a sign that something on the record has changed and in the eyes of these lenders I have suddenly become an appealing prospect again. I believe scores should be taken with a pinch of salt and you should definitely now think your whole credit worthiness is determined by this factor. If anything, its a gimmick.