Last time I use loan eligibility checker

Nasqueron

The_Jester wrote: »

So you must think I'm lying then and up to my neck in debt? Rather than accept the eligibility checker is crap.

Funnily enough, the flip side could be that you don't have enough of a credit history so the lender doesn't want you to have a low rate.


Do you have a credit card, paid off in full every month, contract mobile etc? Did you check Noddle and ClearScore (free front ends) in case there is a problem not showing on Experian?

The_Jester

Candyapple wrote: »

Nope, didn't say that. Rather you seem to think that Experian have you marked down as excellent, gives the impression that you don't understand the system.

You still didn't answer whether or not you checked the other 2 CRAs to see what info they held on you.

Was Admiral the only lender who came out as 95% for you regarding a loan or were there others?

No there were several. Next one up was AA as I recall at 3.2%.

But I won't apply as I antitrust the system anymore.

The_Jester

Nasqueron wrote: »

Funnily enough, the flip side could be that you don't have enough of a credit history so the lender doesn't want you to have a low rate.


Do you have a credit card, paid off in full every month, contract mobile etc? Did you check Noddle and ClearScore (free front ends) in case there is a problem not showing on Experian?

I have a sub to Noddle which tells me the same. I have an excellent credit rating. Clearscore is the same.
I have a CC which I have about a grand on it (I think) which I repay every month. And I have a contract with Vodaphone.

[Deleted User]

The_Jester wrote: »

I have a sub to Noddle which tells me the same. I have an excellent credit rating. Clearscore is the same.

You still seem to only be looking at the pretend ratings.

Are you checking any of the data?

Robisere

Logic:

The eligibility checker gave you a result based upon the specific information you gave. The Lender gave you a different result. It is a difference based upon information supplied by you to both parties.

Was the information identical in both cases?

That is really all candyapple was referring to. No accusation of lying involved.

The_Jester

Bit the bullet and applied through Sainsburys. It sailed through. The same rate it was advertised at which was 2.9%.

So that's 1 out of 3 this eligibility tool has got right.

Only thing was I said it was for home improvements rather than a car this time. Could this be the problem?

sourcrates

The_Jester wrote: »

Bit the bullet and applied through Sainsburys. It sailed through. The same rate it was advertised at which was 2.9%.

So that's 1 out of 3 this eligibility tool has got right.

Only thing was I said it was for home improvements rather than a car this time. Could this be the problem?

The headline rate has to be offered to 51% of applicants, in this instance, your profile met the current requirements for that rate, from that lender.

All eligibility tools use certain algorythems, and a lot of guess work, they cannot cover every angle, so give a generic answer for your demographic.

1-3 is actually not that bad when you concider the tool is working without all the nessessary information, as lenders do not divulge it.

As a side note, credit scores on CRA websites are also fairly meaningless numbers, they are only an indication of your credit worthyness, every lender has their own acceptance criteria, they are used as marketing gimics to sell you credit improvement products.

C.M.

The eligibility checker only tells you the % likelihood of you being offered a loan with a named lender and it tells you the lender’s current headline rate for loans of the value you are looking at.

It doesn’t say you have, for example, a 95% chance of being offered a loan AT that headline rate. As others have said, only 51% of customer have to be offered that rate in order for the lender to be able to advertise it.

System

The_Jester wrote: »

I am a member of Experian. I have an 'Excellent' credit score. It's not only me that thinks that. Experian think that as well.

Are Experian the ones lending you the money? No. Therefore what Experian think counts for nothing. There is at least one person on this board in a DMP who posted they had a 950+ score.

Ebe_Scrooge

The_Jester wrote: »

Only thing was I said it was for home improvements rather than a car this time. Could this be the problem?

It could indeed - in that you could end up with a CIFAS marker on your file if they find out, which will pretty much scupper your chances of getting any further credit for quite some time.