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

eskbanker

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

No, nothing taken personally so no apology needed!  However, you didn't really answer my question, the second one at least....

ItsComingRome

neilperks said:

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.

Oh, your thoughts have been concise, but I never said otherwise.

What you're asking for already exists (the default is marked as satisfied when the debt is paid off), so what is the point of this petition?

neilperks

ItsComingRome said:

neilperks said:

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.

Oh, your thoughts have been concise, but I never said otherwise.

What you're asking for already exists (the default is marked as satisfied when the debt is paid off), so what is the point of this petition?

Thank you for your contribution

neilperks

eskbanker 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

No, nothing taken personally so no apology needed!  However, you didn't really answer my question, the second one at least....

Well, I was looking to this forum to collect the opinions of users like yourself (and I'll be taking everybodies points on board) and seeing if there would be any interest in my petition, as it currently stands, via signatories ... other than my numrous replies to everyone's comments, that's all I've got to offer, so I'm unable to submit 'evidence' to support the plausability of my idea unfortunatley, lol.

I think it's safe to draw a line under it at this point ...  I'm feeling I'm increasing having to defend more than I'm having to explain myself the longer this goes on.

I respect everybodies opinions and appreciate everybodies time Thank you!

ItsComingRome

neilperks said:

ItsComingRome said:

neilperks said:

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.

Oh, your thoughts have been concise, but I never said otherwise.

What you're asking for already exists (the default is marked as satisfied when the debt is paid off), so what is the point of this petition?

Thank you for your contribution

Why are you continuing to fail to respond to my claim that this marker already exists?

Are you some sort of bot giving out platitudes because you're not smart enough to actually answer questions?

eskbanker

ItsComingRome said:
Why are you continuing to fail to respond to my claim that this marker already exists?

To be fair, OP did already address that in earlier exchanges - as I understand it, OP accepts the existence of the 'settled' marker but feels that there should be an additional distinction between 'settled in accordance with a post-default agreement between lender and borrower' and 'settled at borrower's unilateral discretion', although it has been pointed out that the payment history should give enough of a clue if any prospective lender considers that such a differentiation was relevant.

ItsComingRome

eskbanker said:

ItsComingRome said:
Why are you continuing to fail to respond to my claim that this marker already exists?

To be fair, OP did already address that in earlier exchanges - as I understand it, OP accepts the existence of the 'settled' marker but feels that there should be an additional distinction between 'settled in accordance with a post-default agreement between lender and borrower' and 'settled at borrower's unilateral discretion', although it has been pointed out that the payment history should give enough of a clue if any prospective lender considers that such a differentiation was relevant.

Well, they could have just said that.

I agree, it doesn't matter.

What the OP wants is for their past misdeeds to be wiped, or forcibly ignored through legislation but neither of those things are going to happen.  There is nothing "unfair" about the current system, financial institutions are free to pick their customers, just as their customers are free to pick the financial institution they do business with, much like happens with every other business by and large.  Even if banks were forced to lend to defaulters, they'd either charge what the subprime lenders do or, if their misdeeds were erased, charge everyone else more to cover the increased cost of defaulting now their customer base poses more financial risk.  And that's hardly fair to those who maintain a positive credit history.

neilperks

ItsComingRome said:

eskbanker said:

ItsComingRome said:
Why are you continuing to fail to respond to my claim that this marker already exists?

To be fair, OP did already address that in earlier exchanges - as I understand it, OP accepts the existence of the 'settled' marker but feels that there should be an additional distinction between 'settled in accordance with a post-default agreement between lender and borrower' and 'settled at borrower's unilateral discretion', although it has been pointed out that the payment history should give enough of a clue if any prospective lender considers that such a differentiation was relevant.

Well, they could have just said that.

I agree, it doesn't matter.

What the OP wants is for their past misdeeds to be wiped, or forcibly ignored through legislation but neither of those things are going to happen.  There is nothing "unfair" about the current system, financial institutions are free to pick their customers, just as their customers are free to pick the financial institution they do business with, much like happens with every other business by and large.  Even if banks were forced to lend to defaulters, they'd either charge what the subprime lenders do or, if their misdeeds were erased, charge everyone else more to cover the increased cost of defaulting now their customer base poses more financial risk.  And that's hardly fair to those who maintain a positive credit history.

Thanks again eskbanker for eliquently summarising my proposal as it has evoved durin this forum

ItsComingRome you confusingly seem somewhat irritated by the absence of my response. so would like to say I'm sorry, especialy if you feel I haven't engaged with you in a similar pointed or combative tone which you indeed have in your comments.... there is no need or advantage to this form of discourse, I hope we can at least agree on that.

I appreciate your passionate responses and thank you for your extended time

ItsComingRome

neilperks said:

ItsComingRome said:

eskbanker said:

ItsComingRome said:
Why are you continuing to fail to respond to my claim that this marker already exists?

To be fair, OP did already address that in earlier exchanges - as I understand it, OP accepts the existence of the 'settled' marker but feels that there should be an additional distinction between 'settled in accordance with a post-default agreement between lender and borrower' and 'settled at borrower's unilateral discretion', although it has been pointed out that the payment history should give enough of a clue if any prospective lender considers that such a differentiation was relevant.

Well, they could have just said that.

I agree, it doesn't matter.

What the OP wants is for their past misdeeds to be wiped, or forcibly ignored through legislation but neither of those things are going to happen.  There is nothing "unfair" about the current system, financial institutions are free to pick their customers, just as their customers are free to pick the financial institution they do business with, much like happens with every other business by and large.  Even if banks were forced to lend to defaulters, they'd either charge what the subprime lenders do or, if their misdeeds were erased, charge everyone else more to cover the increased cost of defaulting now their customer base poses more financial risk.  And that's hardly fair to those who maintain a positive credit history.

Thanks again eskbanker for eliquently summarising my proposal as it has evoved durin this forum

ItsComingRome you confusingly seem somewhat irritated by the absence of my response. so would like to say I'm sorry, especialy if you feel I haven't engaged with you in a similar pointed or combative tone which you indeed have in your comments.... there is no need or advantage to this form of discourse, I hope we can at least agree on that.

I appreciate your passionate responses and thank you for your extended time

And you're still failing to address the question.

Got to be a bot.

neilperks

ItsComingRome said:

neilperks said:

ItsComingRome said:

eskbanker said:

ItsComingRome said:
Why are you continuing to fail to respond to my claim that this marker already exists?

To be fair, OP did already address that in earlier exchanges - as I understand it, OP accepts the existence of the 'settled' marker but feels that there should be an additional distinction between 'settled in accordance with a post-default agreement between lender and borrower' and 'settled at borrower's unilateral discretion', although it has been pointed out that the payment history should give enough of a clue if any prospective lender considers that such a differentiation was relevant.

Well, they could have just said that.

I agree, it doesn't matter.

What the OP wants is for their past misdeeds to be wiped, or forcibly ignored through legislation but neither of those things are going to happen.  There is nothing "unfair" about the current system, financial institutions are free to pick their customers, just as their customers are free to pick the financial institution they do business with, much like happens with every other business by and large.  Even if banks were forced to lend to defaulters, they'd either charge what the subprime lenders do or, if their misdeeds were erased, charge everyone else more to cover the increased cost of defaulting now their customer base poses more financial risk.  And that's hardly fair to those who maintain a positive credit history.

Thanks again eskbanker for eliquently summarising my proposal as it has evoved durin this forum

ItsComingRome you confusingly seem somewhat irritated by the absence of my response. so would like to say I'm sorry, especialy if you feel I haven't engaged with you in a similar pointed or combative tone which you indeed have in your comments.... there is no need or advantage to this form of discourse, I hope we can at least agree on that.

I appreciate your passionate responses and thank you for your extended time

And you're still failing to address the question.

Got to be a bot.

I love you x