Rejected based solely on a bank's error with my address - avenues for recourse?

windswept_melon

Thank you all for your replies. I thought I should give you an update. The credit agency (Experian in this case) did correct my address, by linking all possible versions together, so I did then show up as being on the electoral roll. However, Santander then refused the application again on the basis that too many applications were made in a short space of time, d'oh!

Anyway, I wrote to them and explained that I felt that this was somewhat silly (though I explained it somewhat more constructively than my paraphrasing here :-)) and also that the letter of rejection they sent me was apparently not compliant with the lending code, because it did not state the main reason for rejection and it did not explain about avenues for recourse (their complaints procedure and, ultimately, the ombudsman). (The PDF "guide for personal customers" you can download from the Lending Standards Board's website states those requirements.)

They responded to this very quickly; I had a very constructive call from them and they agreed with me about the shortcomings of this particular rejection letter and said they would be reviewing it, because it was not sufficiently clear (as above). They said that if I were to apply again they'd not hold the previous application's rejection against me.

Thanks again for all of your advice. I'm very glad to say that in this case all of this effort has paid off! :-)

meer53

How has it paid off ? They can still reject your application. This is all they have to tell you :

Could information from the credit reference agency
be the only reason for declining my application?
Possibly, but if this is the case, we will tell you. The information
received from the credit reference agency is only one part of the
decision-making process. Sometimes, there may be no detrimental
information held about you at the agency but we still may not be
able to accept an application simply because it does not meet all of
our business criteria at the time.

windswept_melon

meer53: it's paid off because previously they were not clearly explaining the reason for the rejection on the letters sent out to people who were rejected because there was an error with their details (e.g. typo or other mistake). I.e. that "we will tell you" that you quote in your post was not happening. Given the conversation I had with the person in complaints there, we are expecting this to be fixed for others in the future. I'd say that was a good result.

Of course they can reject someone for business reasons; my problem (as explained above) was that they were not clear on why they were rejecting me, and in my case it turned out to be an administrative error (which I got corrected), rather than business criteria.

System

They don't legally have to tell you why they don't want your business.
Which part of this are you not getting?!

Customer relations are there to dispose of complaints - legitimate or otherwise - this can be just handholding without really doing anything...

mgdavid

Heng_Leng wrote: »

They don't legally have to tell you why they don't want your business.
Which part of this are you not getting?!...

Suggest you re-read the whole thread (slowly), especially paragraph 2 of the post immediately before yours.
The OP isn't 'not getting' anything.

Candyapple

windswept_melon wrote: »

They said that if I were to apply again they'd not hold the previous application's rejection against me.

I’m sure the word of one customer service rep is going to make no difference if you applied again because there will be no human intervention when they credit score your application, so take that BS with a large pinch of salt.

windswept_melon wrote: »

meer53: it's paid off because previously they were not clearly explaining the reason for the rejection on the letters sent out to people who were rejected because there was an error with their details (e.g. typo or other mistake). I.e. that "we will tell you" that you quote in your post was not happening. Given the conversation I had with the person in complaints there, we are expecting this to be fixed for others in the future. I'd say that was a good result.

Do you honestly believe that Santander in the future if declining an applicant will now send out ‘specific reasons why’ they were rejected in a letter? If you think yes, you are sadly mistaken. ALL lenders cover themselves by referring any applicant to the CRA(s) they used to credit check them because each lender has their own criteria they use to score applicants for whatever product it is they are applying for. If they started sending out letters by your example, stating that their address was incorrect, if said applicant then got this corrected and re-applied and was again declined, this leaves the lender open to legal redress/compensation claims because their decline letter would imply that they would have got the account had it not have been for the incorrect address.

It is up to the applicant thereafter to obtain a copy of their credit report from said CRA to make sure everything is correct and if it is and still feel as though they were unfairly declined, to write an appeal letter.

System

Having just reread the thread - my opinion remains the same.

Ultimately, the bank can decide not to do business with the OP and the reason given will be vague enough to be that they can't be sued for defamation.

mgdavid wrote: »

Suggest you re-read the whole thread (slowly), especially paragraph 2 of the post immediately before yours.
The OP isn't 'not getting' anything.