Excellent score but lowest introduction rate

Sandtree

phillw said:

Sandtree said:

so card issuers have to confirm the APRs being given in comparison to the stated APR to ensure they are meeting the requirement that at least 50% of successful applicants get the advertised rate or better.

Which probably means that if you apply when they are sweating that they haven't wanted to give the stated APR to at least 50% of applicants so far, then you're more likely to at least get the advertised rate.

Yes, and you could argue conversely after a run of great customers applying and getting the advertised rate they may tighten up criteria for others and therefore give more higher rates.

I cannot say with credit cards but at the start of machine learning/artificial intelligence being used in car insurance the scripts were already looking for unusually high quote to sale ratios on non-target customer segments and would automatically raise prices or in extreme situations would stop quoting. Much better than the old days of putting your new rates live and closely monitoring the sales for indications your modelling (or typing) was wrong.

callum9999

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

Maybe maybe not, nothing to lose by asking.

I asked on here because as a consumer it feels wrong but clearly its just my view. 

Not maybe not, absolutely not.  You do have something to lose by asking, your time. Although perhaps if you don't value that then maybe you don't.

It's not wrong.  They don't want people gaming the system by handing them a cheet sheet to acceptance. If you can't see why that's an entirely sensible thing to do I don't know what to say.

Then perhaps say nothing more, I see both points of the arguments.

People should be given a rough area of their report to improve for either rejected applications or accepted applications with different outcomes like lower months of introduction period. 

Feel free to close this thread , no point allowing comments anymore. 

Err, no they shouldn't.

Almost none of what is on your application can easily be changed.  Yes, you could earn more money but it's not just a case of going out and earning more money.  You could become a homeowner but you're not suddenly going to go out and buy a house because it'll make you a safer bet to lenders.  You can't just get rid of dependents for example.

What you can do, however, is lie about any of the above in order to increase your chances, and telling people why they were rejected is only going to encourage more of that.

Of course you can change your credit report (completely legitimately...).

If they think your average account age is too short you can stop opening new ones/closing old ones.
If they think your overall limit is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too low you can increase it.
If they don't like you having dormant/near-dormant accounts, you can close them.
If they don't like the number of accounts you have you can reduce them.
Plus many more.

I completely agree with your point about them not wanting to give exact reasons to avoid gaming, but claiming you wouldn't be able to do anything with that information without lying and committing fraud is absurd. 

I said application, not credit report.  Do keep up.

Well no, you said "what difference does it make as to why you were rejected? ... 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 chance."

Perhaps you misspoke and it's not what you meant, but the snark was clearly unnecessary - how else am I meant to interpret that?

And I stand by my statement.  What good would it achieve?

I'll bite and talk about credit files.

You can't change what's on your credit file easily.  Unless it's incorrect it isn't going to be changed and it'll be there for 6 years.  Yes, you can change what goes onto it, to an extent, but it'll take a while for any changes to have a meaningful impact.  At that point, the lender's criteria will almost certainly have changed and you're back to square one.

Similarly, knowing the reason for rejection (or less favourable terms) won't help you with other lenders, who will almost certainly have different weightings to elements of your credit files.

And lastly, I can absolutely guarantee that telling people why they were rejected will be a very efficient way of tying up your customer service reps time with people who absolutely will not agree with it, and will argue with you until the cows come home.  Been there, got the t-shirt.

So all in all, there is virtually no value, other than satisfying a curiosity, to a consumer knowing why they were knocked back. There are quite significant disadvantages to the bank in telling them why.  And that is why they don't, and won't.

I've already listed what good it would achieve, do keep up. I'll restate it with an example if you need some help... If the only thing Halifax didn't like on my credit file was the utilisation rate, I could reduce it and apply again in 6 months. Without knowing that I could put effort into changing a whole load of other things that would have no affect. Hardly rocket science.

I didn't say it would help with other lenders and the last bit is all utterly irrelevant given I've never claimed it would be good for the banks to do so, nor that I think they should.

Of course there's a risk the criteria would change, but it's not like they are radically altering things all the time... If they like someone with a low utilisation rate and long account history this year, they'll probably like them next year. Hence why the generic advice for improving your credit file doesn't radically change every year.

ThisnotThat

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

Maybe maybe not, nothing to lose by asking.

I asked on here because as a consumer it feels wrong but clearly its just my view. 

Not maybe not, absolutely not.  You do have something to lose by asking, your time. Although perhaps if you don't value that then maybe you don't.

It's not wrong.  They don't want people gaming the system by handing them a cheet sheet to acceptance. If you can't see why that's an entirely sensible thing to do I don't know what to say.

Then perhaps say nothing more, I see both points of the arguments.

People should be given a rough area of their report to improve for either rejected applications or accepted applications with different outcomes like lower months of introduction period. 

Feel free to close this thread , no point allowing comments anymore. 

Err, no they shouldn't.

Almost none of what is on your application can easily be changed.  Yes, you could earn more money but it's not just a case of going out and earning more money.  You could become a homeowner but you're not suddenly going to go out and buy a house because it'll make you a safer bet to lenders.  You can't just get rid of dependents for example.

What you can do, however, is lie about any of the above in order to increase your chances, and telling people why they were rejected is only going to encourage more of that.

Of course you can change your credit report (completely legitimately...).

If they think your average account age is too short you can stop opening new ones/closing old ones.
If they think your overall limit is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too low you can increase it.
If they don't like you having dormant/near-dormant accounts, you can close them.
If they don't like the number of accounts you have you can reduce them.
Plus many more.

I completely agree with your point about them not wanting to give exact reasons to avoid gaming, but claiming you wouldn't be able to do anything with that information without lying and committing fraud is absurd. 

I said application, not credit report.  Do keep up.

Well no, you said "what difference does it make as to why you were rejected? ... 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 chance."

Perhaps you misspoke and it's not what you meant, but the snark was clearly unnecessary - how else am I meant to interpret that?

And I stand by my statement.  What good would it achieve?

I'll bite and talk about credit files.

You can't change what's on your credit file easily.  Unless it's incorrect it isn't going to be changed and it'll be there for 6 years.  Yes, you can change what goes onto it, to an extent, but it'll take a while for any changes to have a meaningful impact.  At that point, the lender's criteria will almost certainly have changed and you're back to square one.

Similarly, knowing the reason for rejection (or less favourable terms) won't help you with other lenders, who will almost certainly have different weightings to elements of your credit files.

And lastly, I can absolutely guarantee that telling people why they were rejected will be a very efficient way of tying up your customer service reps time with people who absolutely will not agree with it, and will argue with you until the cows come home.  Been there, got the t-shirt.

So all in all, there is virtually no value, other than satisfying a curiosity, to a consumer knowing why they were knocked back. There are quite significant disadvantages to the bank in telling them why.  And that is why they don't, and won't.

I've already listed what good it would achieve, do keep up. I'll restate it with an example if you need some help... If the only thing Halifax didn't like on my credit file was the utilisation rate, I could reduce it and apply again in 6 months. Without knowing that I could put effort into changing a whole load of other things that would have no affect. Hardly rocket science.

I didn't say it would help with other lenders and the last bit is all utterly irrelevant given I've never claimed it would be good for the banks to do so, nor that I think they should.

Of course there's a risk the criteria would change, but it's not like they are radically altering things all the time... If they like someone with a low utilisation rate and long account history this year, they'll probably like them next year. Hence why the generic advice for improving your credit file doesn't radically change every year.

And when you reapply, what's to say their utilisation requirements haven't tightened further?  Or perhaps they even relaxed them and tightened up somewhere else where you now fall short.  This could even happen on a daily or even minute by minute basis.  Too many riskier customers apply and accept, tighten up your criteria.  Too many low risk customers, start looking for slightly riskier ones.

This is why knowing what got you knocked back specifically has no value, you don't know if things will be the same next time you apply.

Much better to just follow general guides on how to be as creditworthy as possible and cross your fingers for next time.  At least that way you're not tying yourself in knots trying to satisfy constantly changing criteria.

phillw

callum9999 said:
If the only thing Halifax didn't like on my credit file was the utilisation rate, I could reduce it and apply again in 6 months. Without knowing that I could put effort into changing a whole load of other things that would have no affect. Hardly rocket science.

But even if that were true, halifax wouldn't reject you because they don't like high numbers in their utilization column. They would reject you because you were the type of person who naturally would run a high utilization rate. It's more of a psychological evaluation than financial as someone with 100% utilization may never default while someone with 10% could.

It's like asking for the questions ahead of an exam. They don't tell you as they want you to have learned everything.

callum9999

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

Maybe maybe not, nothing to lose by asking.

I asked on here because as a consumer it feels wrong but clearly its just my view. 

Not maybe not, absolutely not.  You do have something to lose by asking, your time. Although perhaps if you don't value that then maybe you don't.

It's not wrong.  They don't want people gaming the system by handing them a cheet sheet to acceptance. If you can't see why that's an entirely sensible thing to do I don't know what to say.

Then perhaps say nothing more, I see both points of the arguments.

People should be given a rough area of their report to improve for either rejected applications or accepted applications with different outcomes like lower months of introduction period. 

Feel free to close this thread , no point allowing comments anymore. 

Err, no they shouldn't.

Almost none of what is on your application can easily be changed.  Yes, you could earn more money but it's not just a case of going out and earning more money.  You could become a homeowner but you're not suddenly going to go out and buy a house because it'll make you a safer bet to lenders.  You can't just get rid of dependents for example.

What you can do, however, is lie about any of the above in order to increase your chances, and telling people why they were rejected is only going to encourage more of that.

Of course you can change your credit report (completely legitimately...).

If they think your average account age is too short you can stop opening new ones/closing old ones.
If they think your overall limit is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too low you can increase it.
If they don't like you having dormant/near-dormant accounts, you can close them.
If they don't like the number of accounts you have you can reduce them.
Plus many more.

I completely agree with your point about them not wanting to give exact reasons to avoid gaming, but claiming you wouldn't be able to do anything with that information without lying and committing fraud is absurd. 

I said application, not credit report.  Do keep up.

Well no, you said "what difference does it make as to why you were rejected? ... 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 chance."

Perhaps you misspoke and it's not what you meant, but the snark was clearly unnecessary - how else am I meant to interpret that?

And I stand by my statement.  What good would it achieve?

I'll bite and talk about credit files.

You can't change what's on your credit file easily.  Unless it's incorrect it isn't going to be changed and it'll be there for 6 years.  Yes, you can change what goes onto it, to an extent, but it'll take a while for any changes to have a meaningful impact.  At that point, the lender's criteria will almost certainly have changed and you're back to square one.

Similarly, knowing the reason for rejection (or less favourable terms) won't help you with other lenders, who will almost certainly have different weightings to elements of your credit files.

And lastly, I can absolutely guarantee that telling people why they were rejected will be a very efficient way of tying up your customer service reps time with people who absolutely will not agree with it, and will argue with you until the cows come home.  Been there, got the t-shirt.

So all in all, there is virtually no value, other than satisfying a curiosity, to a consumer knowing why they were knocked back. There are quite significant disadvantages to the bank in telling them why.  And that is why they don't, and won't.

I've already listed what good it would achieve, do keep up. I'll restate it with an example if you need some help... If the only thing Halifax didn't like on my credit file was the utilisation rate, I could reduce it and apply again in 6 months. Without knowing that I could put effort into changing a whole load of other things that would have no affect. Hardly rocket science.

I didn't say it would help with other lenders and the last bit is all utterly irrelevant given I've never claimed it would be good for the banks to do so, nor that I think they should.

Of course there's a risk the criteria would change, but it's not like they are radically altering things all the time... If they like someone with a low utilisation rate and long account history this year, they'll probably like them next year. Hence why the generic advice for improving your credit file doesn't radically change every year.

And when you reapply, what's to say their utilisation requirements haven't tightened further?  Or perhaps they even relaxed them and tightened up somewhere else where you now fall short.  This could even happen on a daily or even minute by minute basis.  Too many riskier customers apply and accept, tighten up your criteria.  Too many low risk customers, start looking for slightly riskier ones.

This is why knowing what got you knocked back specifically has no value, you don't know if things will be the same next time you apply.

Much better to just follow general guides on how to be as creditworthy as possible and cross your fingers for next time.  At least that way you're not tying yourself in knots trying to satisfy constantly changing criteria.

I completely reject the notion that lenders are radically changing their lending criteria day to day so much that you can't possibly have any idea what they're looking for. If that was the case then not even the generic "improve your report" advice would do anything.

I've already stated many times that there's a good chance criteria would change, but you haven't remotely convinced me that being told the specific reasons why your application was rejected is absolutely no better than being told nothing whatsoever.

Assuming you have nothing to back up your claims, and that I don't either, I suppose we'll have to just agree to disagree.

ThisnotThat

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

Maybe maybe not, nothing to lose by asking.

I asked on here because as a consumer it feels wrong but clearly its just my view. 

Not maybe not, absolutely not.  You do have something to lose by asking, your time. Although perhaps if you don't value that then maybe you don't.

It's not wrong.  They don't want people gaming the system by handing them a cheet sheet to acceptance. If you can't see why that's an entirely sensible thing to do I don't know what to say.

Then perhaps say nothing more, I see both points of the arguments.

People should be given a rough area of their report to improve for either rejected applications or accepted applications with different outcomes like lower months of introduction period. 

Feel free to close this thread , no point allowing comments anymore. 

Err, no they shouldn't.

Almost none of what is on your application can easily be changed.  Yes, you could earn more money but it's not just a case of going out and earning more money.  You could become a homeowner but you're not suddenly going to go out and buy a house because it'll make you a safer bet to lenders.  You can't just get rid of dependents for example.

What you can do, however, is lie about any of the above in order to increase your chances, and telling people why they were rejected is only going to encourage more of that.

Of course you can change your credit report (completely legitimately...).

If they think your average account age is too short you can stop opening new ones/closing old ones.
If they think your overall limit is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too low you can increase it.
If they don't like you having dormant/near-dormant accounts, you can close them.
If they don't like the number of accounts you have you can reduce them.
Plus many more.

I completely agree with your point about them not wanting to give exact reasons to avoid gaming, but claiming you wouldn't be able to do anything with that information without lying and committing fraud is absurd. 

I said application, not credit report.  Do keep up.

Well no, you said "what difference does it make as to why you were rejected? ... 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 chance."

Perhaps you misspoke and it's not what you meant, but the snark was clearly unnecessary - how else am I meant to interpret that?

And I stand by my statement.  What good would it achieve?

I'll bite and talk about credit files.

You can't change what's on your credit file easily.  Unless it's incorrect it isn't going to be changed and it'll be there for 6 years.  Yes, you can change what goes onto it, to an extent, but it'll take a while for any changes to have a meaningful impact.  At that point, the lender's criteria will almost certainly have changed and you're back to square one.

Similarly, knowing the reason for rejection (or less favourable terms) won't help you with other lenders, who will almost certainly have different weightings to elements of your credit files.

And lastly, I can absolutely guarantee that telling people why they were rejected will be a very efficient way of tying up your customer service reps time with people who absolutely will not agree with it, and will argue with you until the cows come home.  Been there, got the t-shirt.

So all in all, there is virtually no value, other than satisfying a curiosity, to a consumer knowing why they were knocked back. There are quite significant disadvantages to the bank in telling them why.  And that is why they don't, and won't.

I've already listed what good it would achieve, do keep up. I'll restate it with an example if you need some help... If the only thing Halifax didn't like on my credit file was the utilisation rate, I could reduce it and apply again in 6 months. Without knowing that I could put effort into changing a whole load of other things that would have no affect. Hardly rocket science.

I didn't say it would help with other lenders and the last bit is all utterly irrelevant given I've never claimed it would be good for the banks to do so, nor that I think they should.

Of course there's a risk the criteria would change, but it's not like they are radically altering things all the time... If they like someone with a low utilisation rate and long account history this year, they'll probably like them next year. Hence why the generic advice for improving your credit file doesn't radically change every year.

And when you reapply, what's to say their utilisation requirements haven't tightened further?  Or perhaps they even relaxed them and tightened up somewhere else where you now fall short.  This could even happen on a daily or even minute by minute basis.  Too many riskier customers apply and accept, tighten up your criteria.  Too many low risk customers, start looking for slightly riskier ones.

This is why knowing what got you knocked back specifically has no value, you don't know if things will be the same next time you apply.

Much better to just follow general guides on how to be as creditworthy as possible and cross your fingers for next time.  At least that way you're not tying yourself in knots trying to satisfy constantly changing criteria.

I completely reject the notion that lenders are radically changing their lending criteria day to day so much that you can't possibly have any idea what they're looking for. If that was the case then not even the generic "improve your report" advice would do anything.

I've already stated many times that there's a good chance criteria would change, but you haven't remotely convinced me that being told the specific reasons why your application was rejected is absolutely no better than being told nothing whatsoever.

Assuming you have nothing to back up your claims, and that I don't either, I suppose we'll have to just agree to disagree.

Even if I did, you wouldn't listen anyway.

You've almost certainly never worked for a financial services company, and clearly not with any discretion over lending.  Criteria can and do change constantly.  Banks want to balance out who they lend to, but they have no control over who applies, only who gets accepted.  As AI has become much more sophisticated you can now have constantly changing criteria to ensure that the balance of customers is almost exactly where you want it to be. This is fact, not fiction.

And at the end of the day, this is all completely academic, no lender is going to tell you why you were declined. And unless the government steps in and forces them to do it (which it won't) it's not going to happen in the future either.

maisie_cat

I have an excellent "score" as well but my chances of getting any card is very low because my income is low. 
I have been with FD since 1995,  had the same credit card since 1997 as well as a couple of interest free cards, paid off then closed, over the years. I have not paid interest on a card since 1986 and I don't need another card, but doubt I would get one anyway. The same reasoning that says I can no longer get a good card is probably why you have not got as good a deal as you'd like..

GeordieGeorge

theroninhunter said:

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

They’ll report their data to the regulator who’ll need t see that they are averaging 51% of successful applicants getting their headline rate.

Thrugelmir

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

Maybe maybe not, nothing to lose by asking.

I asked on here because as a consumer it feels wrong but clearly its just my view. 

Not maybe not, absolutely not.  You do have something to lose by asking, your time. Although perhaps if you don't value that then maybe you don't.

It's not wrong.  They don't want people gaming the system by handing them a cheet sheet to acceptance. If you can't see why that's an entirely sensible thing to do I don't know what to say.

Then perhaps say nothing more, I see both points of the arguments.

People should be given a rough area of their report to improve for either rejected applications or accepted applications with different outcomes like lower months of introduction period. 

Feel free to close this thread , no point allowing comments anymore. 

Err, no they shouldn't.

Almost none of what is on your application can easily be changed.  Yes, you could earn more money but it's not just a case of going out and earning more money.  You could become a homeowner but you're not suddenly going to go out and buy a house because it'll make you a safer bet to lenders.  You can't just get rid of dependents for example.

What you can do, however, is lie about any of the above in order to increase your chances, and telling people why they were rejected is only going to encourage more of that.

Of course you can change your credit report (completely legitimately...).

If they think your average account age is too short you can stop opening new ones/closing old ones.
If they think your overall limit is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too low you can increase it.
If they don't like you having dormant/near-dormant accounts, you can close them.
If they don't like the number of accounts you have you can reduce them.
Plus many more.

I completely agree with your point about them not wanting to give exact reasons to avoid gaming, but claiming you wouldn't be able to do anything with that information without lying and committing fraud is absurd. 

I said application, not credit report.  Do keep up.

Well no, you said "what difference does it make as to why you were rejected? ... 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 chance."

Perhaps you misspoke and it's not what you meant, but the snark was clearly unnecessary - how else am I meant to interpret that?

And I stand by my statement.  What good would it achieve?

I'll bite and talk about credit files.

You can't change what's on your credit file easily.  Unless it's incorrect it isn't going to be changed and it'll be there for 6 years.  Yes, you can change what goes onto it, to an extent, but it'll take a while for any changes to have a meaningful impact.  At that point, the lender's criteria will almost certainly have changed and you're back to square one.

Similarly, knowing the reason for rejection (or less favourable terms) won't help you with other lenders, who will almost certainly have different weightings to elements of your credit files.

And lastly, I can absolutely guarantee that telling people why they were rejected will be a very efficient way of tying up your customer service reps time with people who absolutely will not agree with it, and will argue with you until the cows come home.  Been there, got the t-shirt.

So all in all, there is virtually no value, other than satisfying a curiosity, to a consumer knowing why they were knocked back. There are quite significant disadvantages to the bank in telling them why.  And that is why they don't, and won't.

I've already listed what good it would achieve, do keep up. I'll restate it with an example if you need some help... If the only thing Halifax didn't like on my credit file was the utilisation rate, I could reduce it and apply again in 6 months. Without knowing that I could put effort into changing a whole load of other things that would have no affect. Hardly rocket science.

I didn't say it would help with other lenders and the last bit is all utterly irrelevant given I've never claimed it would be good for the banks to do so, nor that I think they should.

Of course there's a risk the criteria would change, but it's not like they are radically altering things all the time... If they like someone with a low utilisation rate and long account history this year, they'll probably like them next year. Hence why the generic advice for improving your credit file doesn't radically change every year.

And when you reapply, what's to say their utilisation requirements haven't tightened further?  Or perhaps they even relaxed them and tightened up somewhere else where you now fall short.  This could even happen on a daily or even minute by minute basis.  Too many riskier customers apply and accept, tighten up your criteria.  Too many low risk customers, start looking for slightly riskier ones.

This is why knowing what got you knocked back specifically has no value, you don't know if things will be the same next time you apply.

Much better to just follow general guides on how to be as creditworthy as possible and cross your fingers for next time.  At least that way you're not tying yourself in knots trying to satisfy constantly changing criteria.

I completely reject the notion that lenders are radically changing their lending criteria day to day so much that you can't possibly have any idea what they're looking for. If that was the case then not even the generic "improve your report" advice would do anything.

From the lenders perspective there's a finite tranche of funding available.  The risk management team will therefore be adjusting criteria to meet the internally set targets. Will be constantly moving as accounts are opened/closed,  credit limits raised/lowered. With the added complexity of what's happening in a broader economic potentially impacting, i.e. global pandemic = higher level of defaults as incomes drop/cease.  Lenders operate their "books" at a macro level not at micro. A very different perspective.  Adjustments can be made to algorithms instanteously.  

callum9999

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

callum9999 said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

ThisnotThat said:

theroninhunter said:

Maybe maybe not, nothing to lose by asking.

I asked on here because as a consumer it feels wrong but clearly its just my view. 

Not maybe not, absolutely not.  You do have something to lose by asking, your time. Although perhaps if you don't value that then maybe you don't.

It's not wrong.  They don't want people gaming the system by handing them a cheet sheet to acceptance. If you can't see why that's an entirely sensible thing to do I don't know what to say.

Then perhaps say nothing more, I see both points of the arguments.

People should be given a rough area of their report to improve for either rejected applications or accepted applications with different outcomes like lower months of introduction period. 

Feel free to close this thread , no point allowing comments anymore. 

Err, no they shouldn't.

Almost none of what is on your application can easily be changed.  Yes, you could earn more money but it's not just a case of going out and earning more money.  You could become a homeowner but you're not suddenly going to go out and buy a house because it'll make you a safer bet to lenders.  You can't just get rid of dependents for example.

What you can do, however, is lie about any of the above in order to increase your chances, and telling people why they were rejected is only going to encourage more of that.

Of course you can change your credit report (completely legitimately...).

If they think your average account age is too short you can stop opening new ones/closing old ones.
If they think your overall limit is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too high you can reduce it.
If they think your credit utilisation is too low you can increase it.
If they don't like you having dormant/near-dormant accounts, you can close them.
If they don't like the number of accounts you have you can reduce them.
Plus many more.

I completely agree with your point about them not wanting to give exact reasons to avoid gaming, but claiming you wouldn't be able to do anything with that information without lying and committing fraud is absurd. 

I said application, not credit report.  Do keep up.

Well no, you said "what difference does it make as to why you were rejected? ... 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 chance."

Perhaps you misspoke and it's not what you meant, but the snark was clearly unnecessary - how else am I meant to interpret that?

And I stand by my statement.  What good would it achieve?

I'll bite and talk about credit files.

You can't change what's on your credit file easily.  Unless it's incorrect it isn't going to be changed and it'll be there for 6 years.  Yes, you can change what goes onto it, to an extent, but it'll take a while for any changes to have a meaningful impact.  At that point, the lender's criteria will almost certainly have changed and you're back to square one.

Similarly, knowing the reason for rejection (or less favourable terms) won't help you with other lenders, who will almost certainly have different weightings to elements of your credit files.

And lastly, I can absolutely guarantee that telling people why they were rejected will be a very efficient way of tying up your customer service reps time with people who absolutely will not agree with it, and will argue with you until the cows come home.  Been there, got the t-shirt.

So all in all, there is virtually no value, other than satisfying a curiosity, to a consumer knowing why they were knocked back. There are quite significant disadvantages to the bank in telling them why.  And that is why they don't, and won't.

I've already listed what good it would achieve, do keep up. I'll restate it with an example if you need some help... If the only thing Halifax didn't like on my credit file was the utilisation rate, I could reduce it and apply again in 6 months. Without knowing that I could put effort into changing a whole load of other things that would have no affect. Hardly rocket science.

I didn't say it would help with other lenders and the last bit is all utterly irrelevant given I've never claimed it would be good for the banks to do so, nor that I think they should.

Of course there's a risk the criteria would change, but it's not like they are radically altering things all the time... If they like someone with a low utilisation rate and long account history this year, they'll probably like them next year. Hence why the generic advice for improving your credit file doesn't radically change every year.

And when you reapply, what's to say their utilisation requirements haven't tightened further?  Or perhaps they even relaxed them and tightened up somewhere else where you now fall short.  This could even happen on a daily or even minute by minute basis.  Too many riskier customers apply and accept, tighten up your criteria.  Too many low risk customers, start looking for slightly riskier ones.

This is why knowing what got you knocked back specifically has no value, you don't know if things will be the same next time you apply.

Much better to just follow general guides on how to be as creditworthy as possible and cross your fingers for next time.  At least that way you're not tying yourself in knots trying to satisfy constantly changing criteria.

I completely reject the notion that lenders are radically changing their lending criteria day to day so much that you can't possibly have any idea what they're looking for. If that was the case then not even the generic "improve your report" advice would do anything.

I've already stated many times that there's a good chance criteria would change, but you haven't remotely convinced me that being told the specific reasons why your application was rejected is absolutely no better than being told nothing whatsoever.

Assuming you have nothing to back up your claims, and that I don't either, I suppose we'll have to just agree to disagree.

Even if I did, you wouldn't listen anyway.

You've almost certainly never worked for a financial services company, and clearly not with any discretion over lending.  Criteria can and do change constantly.  Banks want to balance out who they lend to, but they have no control over who applies, only who gets accepted.  As AI has become much more sophisticated you can now have constantly changing criteria to ensure that the balance of customers is almost exactly where you want it to be. This is fact, not fiction.

And at the end of the day, this is all completely academic, no lender is going to tell you why you were declined. And unless the government steps in and forces them to do it (which it won't) it's not going to happen in the future either.

Where on Earth does that assumption come from? Have you EVER seen me presented with evidence for something then just "not listen"? Perhaps you do that, but I do not...

It's clear you don't listen though given you keep repeating back to me things I've already said many, many times as if it's new information to me. I'm well aware criteria are constantly tweaked (hence me saying that), they simply do not change so much that it would "always be completely useless" to know why you'd been rejected.

This is boring now, goodbye.