The Sub Prime Credit Thread - Part IV

noah271007 wrote: »

I would have thought CCJ will remain a hindrance for the full 6 years as it is part of the public data. Whereas a default is not.

A single default for a small amount from a mobile phone company for example should be judged differently to one who have a CCJ. I believe there is little difference between of the two adverse entries but for people like us it is extremely unfair.

Could NID or anyone else list out the lenders that are known to search back of 3 years (and full 6 years if ANY adverse entries are recorded during the past three years). Tesco is one but any other mainstream lenders?

A CCJ will hinder for the full 6 years but some lenders still ignore them after 3 years, so long as everything else is ok within the last 3 years after the CCJ was applied (settled or not).

Remember a CCJ is found when the automated process searches Registry Trust (i.e. Public Data) so it will always be 'scored' but some lenders, such as Tesco, do not care after 3 years.

A list is almost impossible mate cos it varies and is dependant on so many factors - i.e one lender may ignore my defaults but not yours cos you have 3 other cards with low limits and high balances but mine are high limits and zero balances....

A CCJ is worse than a default cos of the seriousness of it (i.e. passing court).... a default could be 'mistakenly placed' - a CCJ is usually correctly placed.

Hope that makes sense mate

TheEffect wrote: »

I don't think it is.

''We're not likely to accept you if:
You've had any CCJs or defaults in the last 12 months''

I think what he means is that even if you have a CCJ that is 2 years old it will still decline you - i.e. they are being generous by saying 12 months...... well that's how I see it anyway

Cap1 are, in some respects, a sub prime lender but its rare (I accept they do, but it is rare) they give accounts to people with CCJ's/Defaults that are within 3 years....

christhesparky wrote: »

i got my cap one card when my ccj was 18 months old

Nice one

Point is, for example, they won't give me one and I have nothing bad other than searches - so you tell me the logic? A clean file with a few searches vs someone that has proven they cannot deal with finances by getting a ccj?

I'm not having a dig, i'm simply saying the process is flawed and decisions are made on a case-by-case basis and cannot be generalised.