Experian score jumped up 397 points

[Deleted User]

Even trying to increase it for free is a poor choice.

Just ignore it.

Nasqueron

phillw wrote: »

I agree that paying the CRA to improve your credit score is a poor choice, but you don't have to do that. Like you don't have to vape.

I guess I have to look forward to more ridiculous factually correct posts by black/white thinking people about credit scores being meaningless/novelty/jokes/etc. At least it's an easy way to spot types of people.

I fixed that for you.



The credit score is a novelty, you can believe the opposite, but you would be wrong, even the CRAs admit the score is not seen by lenders. There is no correlation between your "score" and whether you will get credit. Lenders NEVER SEE THE SCORE - they use their own scoring system (which may well be provided by the CRAs but crucially it is not the same as the one you see and you will pretty much never see that score nor the methodology behind it to stop people gaming the system). That internal scoring system is based on the DATA on your record and interpreted by the lender on their own risk rating.



Bankrupts get a score of 999 but aren't going to get prime credit. There are hundreds of posts on here essentially amounting to "I have a score of 9xx, why was I refused a £5 a month phone contract"

potatoefeet66

Why did I receive a letter from lender stating “ I had failed credit scoring or not met it’s internal policy rules. The letter stated it uses credit scoring as the fairest way in considering lending. In attached document it referred to understanding your credit score for “further borrowing”
in this instance I was intending a lump sum reduction 75k off existing 142k mortgage. The letter referred me to Experian who I pay monthly subscription to.

Have we all been miss led over these fees thinking that lenders are looking at this data to make informed decisions. Life skill honesty. :money:

[Deleted User]

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

Why did I receive a letter from lender stating “ I had failed credit scoring or not met it’s internal policy rules.

That's because they use credit scoring to assess your application, by taking your data and allocating a score based on their lending criteria. This can be carried out by themselves or by a third party.

This is not the 'credit score' you may be familiar with via the CRAs.

Willing2Learn

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

Why did I receive a letter from lender stating “ I had failed credit scoring or not met it’s internal policy rules. The letter stated it uses credit scoring as the fairest way in considering lending..."

You are misunderstanding the term 'credit scoring'.


A lender credit scores you against their independent criteria and policies using:

• The data held in your credit file(s)
• The data you submit in your credit application
• The data already held by the lender if you are an existing or returning customer

potatoefeet66

Ok thanks I see. So I will be cancelling my subscription to Experian.
So as an “existing customer” if I’m not going to or able to satisfy the lenders internal policy rules they should not have accepted an application to amend my existing mortgage they know from the information held whether as an existing customer I meet their scoring / internal policy rulesno wonder this lender declined to acknowledge that they carried out an application to make lum sum reduction upon simultaneously port my 0.84 lifetime tracker reduced to less than 20% LTV

Life Skill honesty :money:

Ebe_Scrooge

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

Ok thanks I see. So I will be cancelling my subscription to Experian.
So as an “existing customer” if I’m not going to or able to satisfy the lenders internal policy rules they should not have accepted an application to amend my existing mortgage they know from the information held whether as an existing customer I meet their scoring / internal policy rulesno wonder this lender declined to acknowledge that they carried out an application to make lum sum reduction upon simultaneously port my 0.84 lifetime tracker reduced to less than 20% LTV

Life Skill honesty :money:

There is little point in paying for an Experian subscription - the relevant data is available to you at no charge.

You need to understand how a lender makes decisions. Yes, they use the data they already hold about you - but that only gives them information about products you already hold with them. They will also access wider information relating to your credit history from one or more of the CRAs. All this information is fed into their own internal algorithm to create a score. Now, the crucial part is that each company's algorithms will be different, and the score they come up with bears little if any resemblance to the one provided by the CRA. No-one will know what their algorithms look at - that is commercially sensitive information. One company may prefer lending to people under 30 with a salary of over £45k. Another company may prefer older people. Some companies prefer to restrict their lending to "safe bets", and offer low rates. Others are prepared to take a punt and risk lending to those with a poorer history, but make their money by charging much higher interest rates. Every company is different, and every company has it's own "ideal borrower" profile.

This is often the cause of misunderstanding - yes, you may fail an application because you don't get a high enough score on the company's internal scoring system - but the fact remains that the score provided by Experian and the like is neither seen nor used by a lender. They only use the factual data held by the CRA. So ignore your Experian score - but do check to make sure that the data they hold on you is factually correct.

potatoefeet66

However, this particular lenders internal data was inaccurate and misleading, information which did not show on my CRA file, their errors prevented my making an informed decision and forced me to sit on debt. I have requested lender under DPA to rectify matter and they have ignored my request.

Life skill honesty. :money:

[Deleted User]

What data was missing?

phillw

Nasqueron wrote: »

I [STRIKE]fixed that [/STRIKE] messed that up for you.

There you go.

Nasqueron wrote: »

The credit score is a novelty, you can believe the opposite, but you would be wrong, even the CRAs admit the score is not seen by lenders.

Again with the black/white thinking. A credit score doesn't have to be either a novelty or the opposite of a novelty (whatever that is). The CRAs "admitting" the score is not seen by lenders is irrelevant, I never claimed it was seen by lenders or that lenders seeing it was important to my position.

Nasqueron wrote: »

There is no correlation between your "score" and whether you will get credit.

I never claimed that there was a direct correlation. Things that adversely affect your credit score may restrict your ability to get the best deals from the whole of the market. There may also be other things that don't affect your credit score that do the same thing. I don't think you have enough time to patronise everyone who is seeking credit though, so the credit score and a few other things to consider are still helpful.

If for example you check three CRAs and notice that one is scoring you badly then it's a sign that it is worth drilling down a bit more. Not everyone pours over their credit file every month to spot mistakes for example

Nasqueron wrote: »

There are hundreds of posts on here essentially amounting to "I have a score of 9xx, why was I refused a £5 a month phone contract"

So? That is like people saying "I use nicotine patches, why am I still addicted to nicotine as I've given up smoking". That doesn't mean that nicotine patches don't help you give up smoking.

You can educate people better without the cultish behaviour.