Dysfunctional credit reporting makes me £15

Dobbibill

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

My experience, described in post #2, would seem to disprove that (as a standalone reason)?

For the avoidance of doubt, the 5th credit card rejection was put down to VERY high available credit (almost 3x salary at the time) and over-indebtedness (stoozing debt way, way, in excess of my salary).

You are probably right there YB. I was attempting to calculate the equation of x + y, without really knowing what x or y equalled. :doh:

GingerBob wrote: »

Actually that's a good point. Between us we have 18 credit cards. I haven't added up our total facility but it will be very high and perhaps also 3x total salary, if not more (we never pay interest).

Now we have more information, I think YB has probably got the reasoning pretty spot on.

mcpitman

GingerBob wrote: »

Please point me to the government legislation that says a credit check must be carried out one someone applying for a current account that doesn't offer credit.

www.google.co.uk

GingerBob_3

mcpitman wrote: »

www.google.co.uk

Nope. Not there. I guess it doesn't exist, but maybe you know better?

mcpitman

GingerBob wrote: »

Nope. Not there. I guess it doesn't exist, but maybe you know better?

www.google.co.uk definitely exists.

How you use it and what you search for is entirely up to you.

[Deleted User]

GingerBob wrote: »

Can you perhaps explain what is the purpose of the above post? I'm struggling to see anything meaningful or useful.

You could say that about any one of your posts on here.

GingerBob_3

camelot1971 wrote: »

You could say that about any one of your posts on here.

This sort of sh 1t really makes me laugh. You come up with a derogatory comment simply because you don't agree with a point of view. A competent person would formulate a counter argument and present it.

Arleen

GingerBob wrote: »

This sort of sh 1t really makes me laugh. You come up with a derogatory comment simply because you don't agree with a point of view. A competent person would formulate a counter argument and present it.

Competent counter argument can be only made to not-semi half-assed content.

And the reason why current accounts are treated as credit facility is because they are one. You may not have a planned overdraft, but almost all of them offer an unplanned overdraft facility. All of that is outlined in the T&C that you clearly didn't read.

GingerBob_3

Arleen wrote: »

Competent counter argument can be only made to not-semi half-assed content.

And the reason why current accounts are treated as credit facility is because they are one. You may not have a planned overdraft, but almost all of them offer an unplanned overdraft facility. All of that is outlined in the T&C that you clearly didn't read.

You just don't get it, do you? And the previous poster and mcpitman as well. Talk about missing the point and not understanding an argument or point of view. Stroll on! Here it is in simpler terms, which hopefully you'll be able to get a grip of:


I am well aware of how current accounts work, including, the so-called unplanned overdraft.


I did not apply for an un-planned overdraft, nor any form of credit.


The banks push this unwanted 'facility' for want of a better word onto all applicants, meaning they carry out a hard check when one is not needed.


Banks can prevent unplanned overdrafts, but they don't, unless you go for a basic account.


With current accounts offering the best interest rates they are increasingly being used purely as investment vehicles, but the banks are disregarding this from the point of view of credit checking.


The point I was trying to make in my original post is that the current practice of carrying out a credit check on a current account with no formal overdraft facility is basically malpractice. That is my point of view. If you have an alterative point of view please put it forward - second thoughts - don't bother. I can guess at what you might have to say.

takman

GingerBob wrote: »

Banks can prevent unplanned overdrafts, but they don't, unless you go for a basic account.

They don't do this on normal current accounts because it would mean that you wouldn't be able to do offline transactions on your card. Which will soon cause people to make complaints and switch to another bank if they are getting transactions declined when they have thousands in the bank!.

With current accounts offering the best interest rates they are increasingly being used purely as investment vehicles, but the banks are disregarding this from the point of view of credit checking.

You need to remember the reason that these current accounts are offering such good rates is because they want new customers who will switch all their financial products to them and will go to them first for loans, credit cards and other credit.
So they credit check you to make sure you have a good credit history. They don't want to be paying high interest to customers who won't be eligible for their money making products!.
So yes many people are using multiple accounts just to get the best interest on their savings but this isn't what the banks want. So that's why they impose conditions such as Direct Debits, Monthly Pay Ins and Credit Checks. It's their product so they are free to impose whatever conditions they like when you apply and it is all outlined in the Terms and Conditions.

So you can complain all you like about credit checking but if you want 3%+ interest from a bank then you need to meet their terms. If your not happy with their terms then you will have to make do with 1.02% interest from a standard savings account.

GingerBob_3

Yes, all well and good. But, as I mentioned, the principle of carrying out a credit check - which can have unwanted, adverse effects - is surely tied in with someone applying for real credit. The banks and CRAs have, over the years, sneaked in new procedures like this, where credit checks are carried out for ostensibly non-credit products. It was not that long ago that current accounts did not come within the scope of the CRAs at all. Following pressure and bribery from the CRAs that is not now the case. I contend that the current arrangement is not in the consumers' best interests.