Experian

boo_star

I do agree for the most part with what you're saying but after hearing of a few bankrupts being given 999 scores and Experian's quite ridiculous explanation for it, I can't see the scores as being a reliable indicator of your creditworthiness.

Is your, for example, 705 score a true indication of how your file should be viewed or is the algorithm borked and it's scoring you too low. Likewise with a high score, perhaps it's scoring you far too high.

I know that any computer system can occasionally spit out erroneous results, I know when I worked in a bank that on one or two occasions it was clear that a customers internal score was just plain wrong based on the data available but not to the extent or seeming frequency that the CRAs get it wrong.

And then there's the problem of them just not (from my personal experience) using a scoring system that is even close to how an average mainstream lender would do it.

I just have no faith in them at all.

Ben8282

boo_star wrote: »

after hearing of a few bankrupts being given 999 scores

Did you actually encounter this in the course of your employment with a bank or just by reading what has been written on this forum?
I have not seen any proof of this beyond what somebody has claimed in a post and suspect that this has been repeated so many times to justify the 'credit scores are meaningless' school of thought that myth has become accepted reality due to being repeated and read so many times.
Even if this is true, once acknowledged that there is an anomaly by which bankrupts can be given 999 scores, it becomes just that; a known anomaly.

boo_star

Ben8282 wrote: »

Did you actually encounter this in the course of your employment with a bank or just by reading what has been written on this forum?
I have not seen any proof of this beyond what somebody has claimed in a post and suspect that this has been repeated so many times to justify the 'credit scores are meaningless' school of thought that myth has become accepted reality due to being repeated and read so many times.
Even if this is true, once acknowledged that there is an anomaly by which bankrupts can be given 999 scores, it becomes just that; a known anomaly.

It's from the forum.

The fact that Experian had a rep give a reason (excuse) for it leads me to believe it's true. After all, why write an explanation for it if it isn't happening?

And they didn't say it was an anomaly, they said (paraphrasing) "The reason bankrupts get a 999 score is because their debts have been settled through the bankruptcy (and settled debts look good to lenders)"

Nonsense of course and perhaps they cooked up an explanation to avoid having to fess up to their system being a bit broken but that was their response.

Ben8282

I agree that the response is nonsense. I wonder what 'level' of employee is/was given the task of responding to posts on the forum and if this was some sort of template response given without consulting anybody more senior.

It also makes me curious as to how accounts would be shown post bankruptcy. You would assume that there would have been defaults and/or ccj's and/or late/missed payments but perhaps not if the individual had somehow managed to maintain accounts in good order right up to the moment of bankruptcy - in my opinion unlikely in most cases but perhaps in some cases possible?

So assuming all accounts showing status 0 right up to the moment of bankruptcy with no adverse conduct, then what? Account fully settled and then closed. I can see that this could perhaps result in a high score, but I would also think that this scenario would be very unusual. Presumably post bankruptcy ccj's and defaults would remain for six years and the account history would remain for six years so for this to happen there would have had to have been perfect account conduct right up to the end.

And just how are accounts shown? Are they really marked as settled/closed balance 0? No bankruptcy code?

If the bankruptcy is not shown on credit files as a public record, what is to prevent the bankrupt individual applying for credit?

KellyWilson

Hi, I bought a house last year (got mortgage for next 30 years), paid off all my credit cards, I have one small loan but my credit score is still poor. I have no idea what to do to increase my credit score. If my credit score is low, this suggests I'm a high-risk customer. How to speak with Experian, it has to be something wrong with their data, I'm waiting couple of months..and nothing changed. I would like to get new loan and buy new windows, any ideas?

[Deleted User]

Don't worry about the score. It's a very poor indicator of your risk and no one will ever see it but you.

Check your three files to see if there is anything wrong with the data - make sure all the accounts are correct and so on.

Your main problem with a new loan is likely to be affordability if you already have existing debt.

Ben8282

KellyWilson wrote: »

Hi, I bought a house last year (got mortgage for next 30 years), paid off all my credit cards, I have one small loan but my credit score is still poor. I have no idea what to do to increase my credit score. If my credit score is low, this suggests I'm a high-risk customer. How to speak with Experian, it has to be something wrong with their data, I'm waiting couple of months..and nothing changed. I would like to get new loan and buy new windows, any ideas?

You have a mortgage. You had credit cards with balances which you paid off (after obtaining the mortgage?). You have a loan. Why do you imagine there is anything wrong with your ability to obtain credit? Have you applied and been declined?
You would be better off in terms of APR to wait until your current loan is repaid before obtaining a new one. Also, rather than getting a loan, perhaps some of the paid off credit cards have a 0% existing customer offer that you could make use of instead?

KellyWilson

Thanks Ben8282...Unfortunately I don't have 0% offer on my credit card and I don't want to apply for new one, my credit score will decrease even more if I'll do it.