Can Santander audit me, when I don't have an account with them?

11ME11

AstonSmith said:

We've established that it won't affect any rating/decisions, but what hasn't been answered is the question in the title. Can (a financial institution) do an audit search on somebody without any previous relationship? Especially considering according to the CheckMyFile thing above,

Audit footprints relate to all other accesses of your Credit Report and typically reflect your own access of your Credit Report.

which hasn't occurred here? What kind of access did they request, and why? Should they be allowed to have this data "just because"?

Thanks Aston, for re-iterating.  I was beginning to wonder if I was in the right place.  It just so happened, that at the same time, as this audit, my rating went down.  But, nre to the point, why the hell have they have audited me, without any prior notice, or subsequent notification?  I care for my mother, who has Alzheimer's & therefore have POA, but what right have they to check into MY affairs ?

MorningcoffeeIV

Part of the problem may be from using checkmyfile, who their own quirky and unique way of doing things and are prone to errors.

Check the source CRA to see exactly what appears.

molerat

As above.  Check the actual CRAs to find out what is on there.  There is no such thing as an "audit", that is purely checkmyfile's way of describing a soft search which can be an identity check and such like which could well be carried out as you do have a relationship with Santander as POA.  They have a duty of care towards their customer and would be ensuring your credit file does not show up anything that could jeopardise that duty of care.

And ......... did you actually read the data protection statement at the bottom of the POA application you would have signed ?  You have pretty much agreed to Santander rummaging through your underwear drawer if they wish to

11ME11

I get the impression, that the you are saying the CRAs, are a complete waste of time?  So what about creditclub.com?  Is that a waste of time, too?  Or a slightly different beast ?

MorningcoffeeIV

11ME11 said:

I get the impression, that the you are saying the CRAs, are a complete waste of time?  

No one has said that - unless a post has been deleted?

CliveOfIndia

11ME11 said:

I get the impression, that the you are saying the CRAs, are a complete waste of time?

Far from it.  They provide a valuable service to lenders (which is how they make their money, lenders pay them to access your information).  They also provide you, the consumer, with access to the data that they hold on you, and which is presented to lenders, so that you can check that everything is correct - or query anything that isn't.

The part that is a waste of time is the meaningless score they give you, their view of your credit-worthiness, and their attempts to persuade you to take out new credit cards (for which they often receive a commission) in order to increase your score.

11ME11

Thx,  But surely, the score they give you has to have a reasonable bearing on what your credit worthiness is like ?  It can't just be made up?  Surely it is a good/reasonable indicator ?   I understand that each lender has their own criteria, but it surely must be a good average?

Presumably creditclub.com (the MSE CRA) does not do this then?  Attempt to persuade me to take out new credit cards?  And I should therefore, continue using this CRA, and no other ?

MorningcoffeeIV

11ME11 said:

Thx,  But surely, the score they give you has to have a reasonable bearing on what your credit worthiness is like ?  It can't just be made up?  Surely it is a good/reasonable indicator ?   I understand that each lender has their own criteria, but it surely must be a good average?

No. Because credit scores fluctuate with change. Lenders score on positive and negative factors.

In the credit scoring world, ongoing rubbish credit management scores as highly as ongoing good management. 

So any resemblance between one of your CRA credit scores and your actual likely risk would be purely coincidental.

As an aside - whenever 'surely', is used once in a question, let alone three times, you can be assured that the answer will invariably be 'no'.

molerat

You need to look at the content of all 3 credit reports, ignore the meaningless score.  The score may change with changes to your account so you need to find out if there are any actual changes showing.  There will be a section for credit searches, both hard and soft, and you can see what has been carried out.  You will also see if an account has been put on your file.

https://www.creditkarma.co.uk/signup  for TransUnion

https://app.clearscore.com/signup  for Equifax

https://clubs.moneysavingexpert.com/creditclub/register  for Experian

Nasqueron

11ME11 said:

Thx,  But surely, the score they give you has to have a reasonable bearing on what your credit worthiness is like ?  It can't just be made up?  Surely it is a good/reasonable indicator ?   I understand that each lender has their own criteria, but it surely must be a good average?

Presumably creditclub.com (the MSE CRA) does not do this then?  Attempt to persuade me to take out new credit cards?  And I should therefore, continue using this CRA, and no other ?

MSE Credit Club is just a free front end for Experian, they are not a CRA themselves. MSE also is switching to TransUnion soon (the ones who used to have the Noddle free front end, now Credit Karma)

The score is based on factors that lenders like - such as paying off your debts on time, no missed payments, debt to credit ratio and so on, so that element has an element of use - however, the score itself is meaningless as gives no guarantee at all of whether you will, or won't, get credit. All lenders have their own checking systems, configured to what criteria they want, systems you will never see (to stop people gaming the system) and that check is what will determine credit or not. Firms like Experian do not lend money, so how they rate you is immaterial as their view of you is not that of an actual lender.

As a theoretical example, say lender A will never lend to anyone with even 1 missed payment, you missed one 5 years ago, CRA company B says that you have a 5 year streak since of paying every bill on time, your debt/credit ratio is low etc so they say you're 973/999 - pretty good eh. So you apply to A who take 1 look at your file and automatically reject you because of that 1 missed payment. Yet lender C don't care about that missed one, so your 973 score for them would probably correlate with you getting credit, so it seems like high score = good credit chance.

MSE regularly has stories on the newsletter from people who applied for something like a BT card that said they had 10% chance and got it meaning they could transfer and save money, honestly wouldn't pay attention at all to the score.