Petition to Reform the current system of payment markes on consumer credit reports

ItsComingRome

There is already a marker to say that a default has been remedied.  It gets marked as satisfied.

eskbanker

neilperks said:
I can also understand the scorn from yourself and others regarding the premise you outline in your answer. It's certainly hard to find a fair solution for those who are experiencing adverse credit from poor mental health, personal circumstances etc, without helping those who are happy to abuse the system.

Can I ask if you have experienced adverse credit in the past? Or found it difficult to obtain credit when you needed it?

I'm not speaking from any experience of adverse credit status, no, and am not (consciously at least) being scornful as such, just calling it as I see it when debating the issue in what I'd consider a respectful manner.  Is it accurate to perceive you as approaching this from the perspective of a defaulter who belatedly agreed a repayment plan and feels that this wasn't given any recognition when applying for further credit?  If that is the case, then what evidence do you have that your extra marker (which, as above, wouldn't supersede the default marker as such, as that has to stay) would have made any difference to the risk assessment process used by the new lender?

mjm3346

neilperks said:

mjm3346 said:

"I believe the potential benefit of this additional marker would indicate to the lender that a consumer is of lower risk compared to a similar account maked as defaulted."

Cannot see why a lender would bother to spend anytime looking at this just to choose between poor risk or very poor risk -  unless they had trouble getting good risk clients and were aiming for the Wonga etc end of the market

Thanks for your input, I can see where you are coming from on this, although I'm not sure how broadly classing people with adverse credit as the 'wonga end of the market'' really helps in anyway.

Are you happy with the current system too? Or would you make any changes if you could?

Sliding scale from excellent one end through to "Wonga" at the other - there would be many many with a marker who would not be "wonga" as it were but lets say for a lender there is enough business with no markers why would they bother to look and incur extra costs etc to make other checks if they don't need to. (like buying lumpy flour when already sifted flour is the same price)


The whole system now seems to be about making money for the sites that you can pay to "boost" your (largely meaningless) credit score or use for free and just hand over access to masses of your info.

neilperks

eskbanker said:

neilperks said:
I can also understand the scorn from yourself and others regarding the premise you outline in your answer. It's certainly hard to find a fair solution for those who are experiencing adverse credit from poor mental health, personal circumstances etc, without helping those who are happy to abuse the system.

Can I ask if you have experienced adverse credit in the past? Or found it difficult to obtain credit when you needed it?

I'm not speaking from any experience of adverse credit status, no, and am not (consciously at least) being scornful as such, just calling it as I see it when debating the issue in what I'd consider a respectful manner.  Is it accurate to perceive you as approaching this from the perspective of a defaulter who belatedly agreed a repayment plan and feels that this wasn't given any recognition when applying for further credit?  If that is the case, then what evidence do you have that your extra marker (which, as above, wouldn't supersede the default marker as such, as that has to stay) would have made any difference to the risk assessment process used by the new lender?

If I'm correct in assuming you had taken my question somewhat personally then I do apologise as this was not my intention.

To answer your question, I am approaching this as someone who is simply attempting to think pragmatically about how the current system could be made more fairer. I have experienced both sides ends of the system which is why I can understand when everybody is coming from regarding my proposal.

Your insight and opinions have been helpful so far, and I was simply keen to find out more about people's experiences with credit

ItsComingRome

neilperks said:

eskbanker said:

neilperks said:
I can also understand the scorn from yourself and others regarding the premise you outline in your answer. It's certainly hard to find a fair solution for those who are experiencing adverse credit from poor mental health, personal circumstances etc, without helping those who are happy to abuse the system.

Can I ask if you have experienced adverse credit in the past? Or found it difficult to obtain credit when you needed it?

I'm not speaking from any experience of adverse credit status, no, and am not (consciously at least) being scornful as such, just calling it as I see it when debating the issue in what I'd consider a respectful manner.  Is it accurate to perceive you as approaching this from the perspective of a defaulter who belatedly agreed a repayment plan and feels that this wasn't given any recognition when applying for further credit?  If that is the case, then what evidence do you have that your extra marker (which, as above, wouldn't supersede the default marker as such, as that has to stay) would have made any difference to the risk assessment process used by the new lender?

If I'm correct in assuming you had taken my question somewhat personally then I do apologise as this was not my intention.

To answer your question, I am approaching this as someone who is simply attempting to think pragmatically about how the current system could be made more fairer. I have experienced both sides ends of the system which is why I can understand when everybody is coming from regarding my proposal.

Your insight and opinions have been helpful so far, and I was simply keen to find out more about people's experiences with credit

So yes, you've defaulted and think it's not fair that lenders didn't/don't want to lend to you.

As I already said, there is a marker to show when a default has been settled, it's marked as satisfied.  It serves no real purpose as most prime lenders are interested in whether you defaulted in the first place, much less whether you eventually paid your debts.  As mjm3346 correctly points out, there is a large enough market of squeaky clean customers desiring credit that they have no need to dip their toes into subprime.  Any additional marker (over the one that already exists) will not change that.

Thrugelmir

neilperks said:

eskbanker said:

neilperks said:
I can also understand the scorn from yourself and others regarding the premise you outline in your answer. It's certainly hard to find a fair solution for those who are experiencing adverse credit from poor mental health, personal circumstances etc, without helping those who are happy to abuse the system.

Can I ask if you have experienced adverse credit in the past? Or found it difficult to obtain credit when you needed it?

I'm not speaking from any experience of adverse credit status, no, and am not (consciously at least) being scornful as such, just calling it as I see it when debating the issue in what I'd consider a respectful manner.  Is it accurate to perceive you as approaching this from the perspective of a defaulter who belatedly agreed a repayment plan and feels that this wasn't given any recognition when applying for further credit?  If that is the case, then what evidence do you have that your extra marker (which, as above, wouldn't supersede the default marker as such, as that has to stay) would have made any difference to the risk assessment process used by the new lender?

To answer your question, I am approaching this as someone who is simply attempting to think pragmatically about how the current system could be made more fairer.

The Credit Ratings Agencies cover their costs and make a profit by selling access to their datasets. The data has to be of commercial value. Without the data the cost of borrowing would be higher for everyone. If we returned to the old fashioned methods of appraising peoples credit worthiness. Too simplistic to approach the issue from one personal experience at the micro level. 

neilperks

ItsComingRome said:

neilperks said:

eskbanker said:

neilperks said:
I can also understand the scorn from yourself and others regarding the premise you outline in your answer. It's certainly hard to find a fair solution for those who are experiencing adverse credit from poor mental health, personal circumstances etc, without helping those who are happy to abuse the system.

Can I ask if you have experienced adverse credit in the past? Or found it difficult to obtain credit when you needed it?

I'm not speaking from any experience of adverse credit status, no, and am not (consciously at least) being scornful as such, just calling it as I see it when debating the issue in what I'd consider a respectful manner.  Is it accurate to perceive you as approaching this from the perspective of a defaulter who belatedly agreed a repayment plan and feels that this wasn't given any recognition when applying for further credit?  If that is the case, then what evidence do you have that your extra marker (which, as above, wouldn't supersede the default marker as such, as that has to stay) would have made any difference to the risk assessment process used by the new lender?

If I'm correct in assuming you had taken my question somewhat personally then I do apologise as this was not my intention.

To answer your question, I am approaching this as someone who is simply attempting to think pragmatically about how the current system could be made more fairer. I have experienced both sides ends of the system which is why I can understand when everybody is coming from regarding my proposal.

Your insight and opinions have been helpful so far, and I was simply keen to find out more about people's experiences with credit

So yes, you've defaulted and think it's not fair that lenders didn't/don't want to lend to you.

As I already said, there is a marker to show when a default has been settled, it's marked as satisfied.  It serves no real purpose as most prime lenders are interested in whether you defaulted in the first place, much less whether you eventually paid your debts.  As mjm3346 correctly points out, there is a large enough market of squeaky clean customers desiring credit that they have no need to dip their toes into subprime.  Any additional marker (over the one that already exists) will not change that.

I appreciate you trying to help me directly based on your assumptions, I've noted that you approve  of the current system

ItsComingRome

neilperks said:

ItsComingRome said:

neilperks said:

eskbanker said:

neilperks said:
I can also understand the scorn from yourself and others regarding the premise you outline in your answer. It's certainly hard to find a fair solution for those who are experiencing adverse credit from poor mental health, personal circumstances etc, without helping those who are happy to abuse the system.

Can I ask if you have experienced adverse credit in the past? Or found it difficult to obtain credit when you needed it?

I'm not speaking from any experience of adverse credit status, no, and am not (consciously at least) being scornful as such, just calling it as I see it when debating the issue in what I'd consider a respectful manner.  Is it accurate to perceive you as approaching this from the perspective of a defaulter who belatedly agreed a repayment plan and feels that this wasn't given any recognition when applying for further credit?  If that is the case, then what evidence do you have that your extra marker (which, as above, wouldn't supersede the default marker as such, as that has to stay) would have made any difference to the risk assessment process used by the new lender?

If I'm correct in assuming you had taken my question somewhat personally then I do apologise as this was not my intention.

To answer your question, I am approaching this as someone who is simply attempting to think pragmatically about how the current system could be made more fairer. I have experienced both sides ends of the system which is why I can understand when everybody is coming from regarding my proposal.

Your insight and opinions have been helpful so far, and I was simply keen to find out more about people's experiences with credit

So yes, you've defaulted and think it's not fair that lenders didn't/don't want to lend to you.

As I already said, there is a marker to show when a default has been settled, it's marked as satisfied.  It serves no real purpose as most prime lenders are interested in whether you defaulted in the first place, much less whether you eventually paid your debts.  As mjm3346 correctly points out, there is a large enough market of squeaky clean customers desiring credit that they have no need to dip their toes into subprime.  Any additional marker (over the one that already exists) will not change that.

I appreciate you trying to help me directly based on your assumptions, I've noted that you approve  of the current system

But you seem to be continuing to gloss over the fact that the marker you want to be added, currently exists.

neilperks

ItsComingRome said:

neilperks said:

ItsComingRome said:

neilperks said:

eskbanker said:

neilperks said:
I can also understand the scorn from yourself and others regarding the premise you outline in your answer. It's certainly hard to find a fair solution for those who are experiencing adverse credit from poor mental health, personal circumstances etc, without helping those who are happy to abuse the system.

Can I ask if you have experienced adverse credit in the past? Or found it difficult to obtain credit when you needed it?

I'm not speaking from any experience of adverse credit status, no, and am not (consciously at least) being scornful as such, just calling it as I see it when debating the issue in what I'd consider a respectful manner.  Is it accurate to perceive you as approaching this from the perspective of a defaulter who belatedly agreed a repayment plan and feels that this wasn't given any recognition when applying for further credit?  If that is the case, then what evidence do you have that your extra marker (which, as above, wouldn't supersede the default marker as such, as that has to stay) would have made any difference to the risk assessment process used by the new lender?

If I'm correct in assuming you had taken my question somewhat personally then I do apologise as this was not my intention.

To answer your question, I am approaching this as someone who is simply attempting to think pragmatically about how the current system could be made more fairer. I have experienced both sides ends of the system which is why I can understand when everybody is coming from regarding my proposal.

Your insight and opinions have been helpful so far, and I was simply keen to find out more about people's experiences with credit

So yes, you've defaulted and think it's not fair that lenders didn't/don't want to lend to you.

As I already said, there is a marker to show when a default has been settled, it's marked as satisfied.  It serves no real purpose as most prime lenders are interested in whether you defaulted in the first place, much less whether you eventually paid your debts.  As mjm3346 correctly points out, there is a large enough market of squeaky clean customers desiring credit that they have no need to dip their toes into subprime.  Any additional marker (over the one that already exists) will not change that.

I appreciate you trying to help me directly based on your assumptions, I've noted that you approve  of the current system

But you seem to be continuing to gloss over the fact that the marker you want to be added, currently exists.

I think I've been concise in my points throughtout this forum... I'm sorry if you've missed any of them.

MovingForwards

neilperks said:

ItsComingRome said:

neilperks said:

eskbanker said:

neilperks said:
I can also understand the scorn from yourself and others regarding the premise you outline in your answer. It's certainly hard to find a fair solution for those who are experiencing adverse credit from poor mental health, personal circumstances etc, without helping those who are happy to abuse the system.

Can I ask if you have experienced adverse credit in the past? Or found it difficult to obtain credit when you needed it?

I'm not speaking from any experience of adverse credit status, no, and am not (consciously at least) being scornful as such, just calling it as I see it when debating the issue in what I'd consider a respectful manner.  Is it accurate to perceive you as approaching this from the perspective of a defaulter who belatedly agreed a repayment plan and feels that this wasn't given any recognition when applying for further credit?  If that is the case, then what evidence do you have that your extra marker (which, as above, wouldn't supersede the default marker as such, as that has to stay) would have made any difference to the risk assessment process used by the new lender?

If I'm correct in assuming you had taken my question somewhat personally then I do apologise as this was not my intention.

To answer your question, I am approaching this as someone who is simply attempting to think pragmatically about how the current system could be made more fairer. I have experienced both sides ends of the system which is why I can understand when everybody is coming from regarding my proposal.

Your insight and opinions have been helpful so far, and I was simply keen to find out more about people's experiences with credit

So yes, you've defaulted and think it's not fair that lenders didn't/don't want to lend to you.

As I already said, there is a marker to show when a default has been settled, it's marked as satisfied.  It serves no real purpose as most prime lenders are interested in whether you defaulted in the first place, much less whether you eventually paid your debts.  As mjm3346 correctly points out, there is a large enough market of squeaky clean customers desiring credit that they have no need to dip their toes into subprime.  Any additional marker (over the one that already exists) will not change that.

I appreciate you trying to help me directly based on your assumptions, I've noted that you approve  of the current system

As someone with previous credit history issues I do approve of the current default system and CCJs, IVA etc.

I don't agree with AP / AR markers as they stick around for 6 years after the account has closed. Therefore it's additional baggage long after the underlying reason has been dealt with and the debt cleared. Unless if a brief blip, arrears cleared and normal payments resume, then it naturally fades away.

The DMP markers I have no knowledge of as they were not a 'thing' when I had one.

Without having time to get back on their feet, someone could easily get in another pickle; as is frequently seen on the debt free boards.