Nationwide soft search.... see result early?

[Deleted User]

That makes sense, but means to those with bad credit they actually contribute to making it worse by adding extra searches.

The likes of Capital One at least say you're declined. Despite the CRAs argument, which I can understand, I can't see how the banks (or CRAs!) feel it is "Treating Customers Fairly" as the lovely FCA love & push so much!!

quadsimo

Offered 1700 @ 19.9% and instantly got declined.

Strange system. Don't know what they look for on a soft search which changes on a hard search.

MysteryCredit

I just tried this with the page source but its not working for me for any message like you had, strange, I did not continue though past the offer page

[Deleted User]

I've tried this today with 3 people.

Person 1 - 'Good news, XXX! - We can offer you £1,000 @ 19.9%, subject to a credit check blah blah blah'. Source code = decision_interim = accept. End result = Accept

Person 2 - 'Good news, YYY! - We can offer you £1,000 @ 19.9%, subject to a credit check blah blah blah'. Source code = decision_interim = decline. Cancelled out of it.

Person 3 - 'Good news, ZZZ! - We can offer you £500 @ 19.9%, subject to a credit check blah blah blah'. Source code = decision_interim = decline.

So £1,000 @ 19.9% isn't automatic decline as has been stated in the past - and previous comments on this thread have backed that up.

It seems £500 @ 19.9% is quoted, and so is probably an auto decline (reading the summary box, £500 is their minimum limit).

I shall be preparing my complaint to send to them (as a precursor to FOS involvement) and the ICO over the next week.

The fact they play silly !!!!!!s with me is of no consequence - they lost money to me. But I sent that screen to the 2 people with 'interim decline' - they both wanted to go ahead, because it said "good news". This is human nature. I then explained about the coding, and they both agreed to cancel out of it, but wouldn't have known that had it not been for me. THAT is what is completely unacceptable.

rtho782

What outcome are you trying to achieve with the FOS and ICO complaints?

How have they mishandled data? That's all the ICO would be interested in?

All I can see that will ever come from this is them either better hiding the information or withdrawing the soft search completely.

theburningcat

I've no interest in applying for their card but I just tried this out of curiosity. I got £2350 at 19.9% on the rendered page. The decision is accept in the page source.

[Deleted User]

rtho782 wrote: »

What outcome are you trying to achieve with the FOS and ICO complaints?

How have they mishandled data? That's all the ICO would be interested in?

All I can see that will ever come from this is them either better hiding the information or withdrawing the soft search completely.

They mishandle data by conducting a search, which is potentially detrimental to the consumer, when they have already made their decision.

I'd imagine it would be a breach, at least, of principle 1 (namely the 'fair' aspect) and principle 2 (further processing when decision has been made - yes the customer consented, but they were baited into it).

They may well better hide it, but there is clear evidence at the moment that every Tom, !!!! and Harry gets the 'good news' message. It's not "Good news" at all - therefore the 'good news' is, in most cases (assuming they decline more apps than they approve), a false and misleading statement.

And IMO, the soft search isn't fit for purpose - so I'd actually prefer it to be withdrawn completely - other companies are capable of correctly processing and displaying decline, refer or likely accept or pre-approved messages. If they can do it, so can N/Wide!

They won't want to withdraw it completely, as then they can't build up their databases of potential customers - which may or may not be used in marketing actives (haven't checked the T&Cs), but will almost certainly be used to assist credit scorecard development, and potentially behavioral scoring - e.g. how many of those offered £1,000 19.9%, that we had 'pre-rejected', were stupid enough to apply.... we think they are a bigger risk, therefore we'll reject more people like that.

rtho782

All of them have already made their decision.

When I use barclaycard "letmechoose" it tells me percentage chances, but they already have all the info from a soft search that a full search will give them, so they already have the ability to make their decision.

MBNA do the exact same thing as barclaycard.

I think you're fighting an uphill struggle here, and your objective seems to be to make it even worse for the customer, so that we have to go back to the days when we just need to apply, take a hard search, and pray.

MrRipley

Quoted £1000 at 19.9% - use Safari so don't know how to look for the code. Anyway declined.

Family member tried. Quoted £1300 at 19.9% - declined also.

[Deleted User]

rtho782 wrote: »

All of them have already made their decision.

When I use barclaycard "letmechoose" it tells me percentage chances, but they already have all the info from a soft search that a full search will give them, so they already have the ability to make their decision.

MBNA do the exact same thing as barclaycard.

I think you're fighting an uphill struggle here, and your objective seems to be to make it even worse for the customer, so that we have to go back to the days when we just need to apply, take a hard search, and pray.

MBNA tell you beforehand if you would be declined - based on a soft search.

As do Creation Finance, RBS/Natwest Group, Capital One, Halifax (with Mortgages).

My issue is not that they don't uphold a decision - as they may well use a different CRA. It's that they have already made a decision of decline and that isn't actually reviewed against a different CRA (given the loading time after pressing submit is <1 second getting a decline page). So I completely accept some people will get a 'likely accepted' page, and/or high percentage, and then be declined. This is the 'gamble' everyone takes and is acceptable. Nationwide's is not.

The issue is that they present the results for customers that will be declined with 'good news...', then whack their file with an extra search. It is not good news if there is a decline decision based on soft search information.

Let's have a look at a few example differences I've collected so far...

Capital One - I have 2 cards already so would be declined, but at least they tell me. Ok the message isn't the most useful (it's not affordability as they used raised my limits, it's a policy decline), but it's still better than going through with a search before saying no!


When you fail credit scoring you get a similar message about improving & correcting your file.


Barclaycard decline based on Soft Search - straight to the point:


MBNA - Straight to the point:


Nationwide - Decline in the code on the right hand side.... I wouldn't say this is straight to the point...???



The aspects in red make the situation worse in my view, because they are playing with customers that have already been declined rather than just saying no. Said customers then, based on the elements highlighted in red, decide to go for a full search.... Only to eventually be told the truth, with no further processing having taken place.

Where does £1,000 come from if it's been declined in the interim results? Where does 19.9% come from if it's been interim declined? That is playing games with consumers! Certainly not abiding by the TCF principles based on my knowledge of them when I worked in a different bank!