Can I do this?

ValiantSon

tenchy wrote: »

So according to that premise, the finance company will come round to repossess the car, and the sofa. The leccy and gas company will disconnect me, I'll lose my mobile phone connection, and they'll turn off the water as well. All of these services are potentially reported to the credit bureaus and help build a history. Yes, some bank accounts and some credit cards may be closed, but it's a long way from Armageddon.

What are you on about? I am talking about access to mainstream financial products, I said nothing about repossession of products that you already own.

You'll also find that without a satisfactory search on a credit file, gas and electricity companies will most likely require pre-payment. Water companies have a universal service obligation so you cannot be cut off. Mobile phone companies won't provide a contract without a satisfactory credit search and will, therefore, require you to have a pay as you go phone if you want a mobile.

Of the examples you give, only the water company will report to credit reference agencies in the instance of someone with a Cifas marker (as they will be the only ones extending any form of credit) who therefore cannot get mainstream financial products.

Try getting a bank account with a Cifas marker! Once the marker is lifted you could expect to get a basic bank account, which doesn't allow access to credit, and therefore makes no meaningful contribution to building a credit history. It really is a pretty dreadful position to be in.

Your post is full of errors.

ValiantSon

Deleted_User wrote: »

Then it should be.

Why should it? Because you say so is not a valid reason. If you don't like it you are free not to do so, but that doesn't make it wrong. I have no intrinsic problem with it; we can't both have it our way, so how do we decide whose opinion is "right" and should be applied? (The answer is we delegate the responsibility to parliament, and they have, thus far, decided that it is fine).

[Deleted User]

So every thing that parliament has done throughout history is correct is it? What about all the laws repealed? Slavery? That was right wasn't it. How about homosexuality? Abortion? Just because a load of people who, in all honesty I wouldn't trust to babysit my dog, let alone decide what is right or wrong. Just because something, at some point in time, is held by the majority as being right, that makes it right does it? What a load of nonsense. IN MY OPINION its wrong and when all said and done in this matter, it is only my opinion that matters, at least to me.

tenchy

ValiantSon wrote: »

What are you on about? I am talking about access to mainstream financial products, I said nothing about repossession of products that you already own.

You'll also find that without a satisfactory search on a credit file, gas and electricity companies will most likely require pre-payment. Water companies have a universal service obligation so you cannot be cut off. Mobile phone companies won't provide a contract without a satisfactory credit search and will, therefore, require you to have a pay as you go phone if you want a mobile.

Of the examples you give, only the water company will report to credit reference agencies in the instance of someone with a Cifas marker (as they will be the only ones extending any form of credit) who therefore cannot get mainstream financial products.

Try getting a bank account with a Cifas marker! Once the marker is lifted you could expect to get a basic bank account, which doesn't allow access to credit, and therefore makes no meaningful contribution to building a credit history. It really is a pretty dreadful position to be in.

Your post is full of errors.

On the contrary, you are incorrect. You said this (my highlighting): "so when you came to apply for a mainstream financial product after six years you would be very likely to be rejected because you have no credit history, and so the cycle would continue. "


But you would have a credit history, as explained - the sofa finance, electric and so on. It would include anything active when you got the marker, and stuff like the sofa finance that wouldn't stop as a result of cifas, You stated that a cifas marker screws you up for life. Well it doesn't.

ValiantSon

Deleted_User wrote: »

So every thing that parliament has done throughout history is correct is it? What about all the laws repealed? Slavery? That was right wasn't it. How about homosexuality? Abortion? Just because a load of people who, in all honesty I wouldn't trust to babysit my dog, let alone decide what is right or wrong. Just because something, at some point in time, is held by the majority as being right, that makes it right does it? What a load of nonsense. IN MY OPINION its wrong and when all said and done in this matter, it is only my opinion that matters, at least to me.

You are missing the point. I never said that what parliament decided was morally right. In fact, I deliberately put the word "right" in speech marks to indicate that this was not an absolute. I said that we delegate the decision on these matters to parliament. These two are not the same thing. Parliament makes a decision and that is the legally correct position. What I wrote, therefore, is not nonsense: you have misunderstood it. Please don't dismiss something as nonsense that is entirely logically consistent!

While your examples of laws that were "wrong" may widely be agreed with, they aren't universally so. The whole point of a free society is that people are entitled to hold different views. You are perfectly entitled to disagree with me about anything and everything that is a matter of opinion, but when it comes to facts you can disagree (or I can) but you would be wrong. It is your opinion that what the banks currently do is wrong, and it is mine that it isn't. It so happens that my opinion is in step with the legally correct position at the present time, but it may not be in future.

Your views on parliament are equally yours to hold, but it doesn't change the fact that parliament is sovereign, and what it says goes.

ValiantSon

tenchy wrote: »

On the contrary, you are incorrect. You said this (my highlighting): "so when you came to apply for a mainstream financial product after six years you would be very likely to be rejected because you have no credit history, and so the cycle would continue. "

What a tedious (and wrong) pedant you are turning out to be.

tenchy wrote: »

But you would have a credit history, as explained - the sofa finance, electric and so on. It would include anything active when you got the marker, and stuff like the sofa finance that wouldn't stop as a result of cifas, You stated that a cifas marker screws you up for life. Well it doesn't.

Except you wouldn't, because as you yourself stated, your credit history is wiped off after 6 years, so by the time the Cifas marker was removed you would no longer have that previous history to fall back on.

I've lost interest in discussing anything with you as you are so desperate to score points. Intelligent discussion interests me, but petty point scoring doesn't. Good luck with your life.

stehouk

I think its wrong that they decline because i don't meet their criteria, well what is it ?
if i knew what the criteria was prior to application i could decide myself if i fit or not and then i don't waste my time or theirs.
They should state the reason for declining the application.

ValiantSon

stehouk wrote: »

I think its wrong that they decline because i don't meet their criteria, well what is it ?
if i knew what the criteria was prior to application i could decide myself if i fit or not and then i don't waste my time or theirs.
They should state the reason for declining the application.

It wouldn't be possible to state the criteria because it isn't a tick list. They are using an algorithm that analyses your application data (and any other data they have access to) to create a holistic view of you. This builds up a profile of you and the decision is made based on this. Everybody's circumstances are unique, so the result for everyone is unique. The best you could hope for is them signposting any "red flags", but these will be relatively few.

mgdavid

Deleted_User wrote: »

Then it should be.

<stamps foot, throws toys away, retreats stage left>

[Deleted User]

mgdavid wrote: »

<stamps foot, throws toys away, retreats stage left>

Retreat? Never. Get bored? Often.

In the same way Emily Wilding Davison threw herself in front of the Kings Horse because she believed what the establishment (majority) ruled was right was IN FACT wrong, I believe in this case I'm right. I might not carry the majority with me but I bet I'm not alone. I take some small comfort, if not the £200 switching bonus, that Pythagoras and Aristotle knew the world was round when the rest of the world took it as flat as A FACT.