Excellent score but lowest introduction rate

theroninhunter

So I've just applied for a sainsbury's credit card, I've got excellent credit scores on all agenciess 999 experian, 657 Transunion so I expected to get the full 21 months int free purchases.

Reality I only got 13 months, phoned sainsbury's to try to determine why only to be told that couldn't advise.

How am I supposed to improve my circumstances if companies won't divulge the reasons? 

[Deleted User]

Check your credit files. Lenders will look at the data on your files and your application in assessing you for risk.  

They don't see or use your credit scores.

They don't divulge reasons as a) they're based on complex algorithms and b) they don't want to encourage creative applications.

theroninhunter

I agree about the score but IMO there is nothing in my reports to hint at a reason to offer the lower rate.

Hence how can I improve if I don't know where the infraction is. 

[Deleted User]

You've been accepted, so there may not be any serious issues. You may just not meet their target criteria.

theroninhunter

Feels like a con, shouldn't their target criteria be public knowledge otherwise how can they be measured accordingly? 

Guessing similar to how they offer the typical lower APR to 51% of applicants but the other 49% get higher APR

[Deleted User]

theroninhunter said:

Feels like a con, shouldn't their target criteria be public knowledge otherwise how can they be measured accordingly? 

No. Lending criteria are commercially confidential.

theroninhunter

Still feels wrong , I should be given reasons why I was given the lower introduction rate.

You go to an interview and get rejected, you are allowed to ask for reasons why or areas to improve, most employers will give feedback on specific areas. 

[Deleted User]

You're allowed to ask for reasons, but they're still allowed to decline to give any.

And reasons for decline at interview are far, far simpler than reasons for decline for credit or not getting a headline rate.

ThisnotThat

theroninhunter said:

Still feels wrong , I should be given reasons why I was given the lower introduction rate.

You go to an interview and get rejected, you are allowed to ask for reasons why or areas to improve, most employers will give feedback on specific areas. 

Not a great example.

You're allowed to ask why you were rejected in an interview but they're not obliged to tell you.  Neither is a lender.

But it's not really all that analogous anyway.  Giving feedback about an interview isn't going to result in people gaming the system to get jobs that they're not qualified for (in general.)  A lender telling people why they were rejected/offered less generous terms etc is.  I mean, think about it. What difference does it make as to why you were rejected?  You told the truth on your application and there was something they didn't like so much.  What would knowing that achieve?  Either you'd get no benefit from knowing as you'd continue to tell the truth on your applications or you'd decide to start lying to up your chances. The latter is exactly what they're trying to avoid.

theroninhunter

Oh well guess I'll just send a GDPR request for access to personal data. 

Thrugelmir

theroninhunter said:

Still feels wrong , I should be given reasons why I was given the lower introduction rate.

You don't meet other internally set criteria. External credit scores aren't themselves relevant. No different to applying for a mortgage.