Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MisterBaxter
    • By MisterBaxter 8th Apr 14, 5:00 AM
    • 653Posts
    • 456Thanks
    MisterBaxter
    Noddle Credit Score
    • #1
    • 8th Apr 14, 5:00 AM
    Noddle Credit Score 8th Apr 14 at 5:00 AM
    For quite a while now my scored with Noddle has been 5/5, combined with the fact that I know nothing has really changed in terms of my credit, payments etc it has meant that I have only been giving my credit report a cursory glance,

    New report was available yesterday and my score had gone down to 4/5, I couldn't think of any immediate reason so I thoroughly checked my report, couldn't see any real changes although I have opened a new current account (kept the old one) and my credit card usage has reduced significantly but there are no nasties.

    So although credit scores don't mean anything in the real world the fact that mine changed made me check my report in more detail that I would normally so perhaps it's not a bad thing to know how the CRA rate you. Conversely the fact the the score dropped 20% with no significant change in circumstances does question the scoring process.

    In future I should probably just check the report in more detail regardless of the score. It hasn't made me want to pay for my score though, I'll stick to stat reports for the other two, if I'm paying for them I'll read them.
Page 2
    • JKSandy
    • By JKSandy 8th Apr 14, 10:55 PM
    • 697 Posts
    • 368 Thanks
    JKSandy
    ^^ Which companies send out letters to people to say they have been pre-approved? Apart from lenders contacting their existing customers.

    The Credit score provided by CRA's is genius, it is a clever marketing tool. Show someone a number, let it go up and down, they get fixated and this equals a returning paying customer.
  • a4a
    ^^ Which companies send out letters to people to say they have been pre-approved? Apart from lenders contacting their existing customers.

    The Credit score provided by CRA's is genius, it is a clever marketing tool. Show someone a number, let it go up and down, they get fixated and this equals a returning paying customer.
    Originally posted by JKSandy
    My daughter got a letter from Aquacard last week offering her 750 on a pre-approved basis. She didn't have a clue who they were.

    Why are so many people fixated with believing CRA credit scores are made up numbers? I am no fan of CRA's but I believe their scoring system plays a role in how lenders view you. The CRA's themselves boast on their websites to lenders how sophisticated their systems are and what they can do for them. They even put it in writing on here. I don't think even they would promote these services and state in writing that they do, if they didn't. This is a major source of their income, they don't get rich from us paying 2.

    A lot of people believe they are meaningless but so far no one has come up with a scrap of evidence to justify their beliefs.
    • JKSandy
    • By JKSandy 8th Apr 14, 11:19 PM
    • 697 Posts
    • 368 Thanks
    JKSandy
    Yes that was a scam letter:

    http://www.aquacard.co.uk/fraudalert

    "We only approve customers for an aqua card if they apply directly with us and do not pass applicants details to any other provider"
    • The Boss
    • By The Boss 8th Apr 14, 11:20 PM
    • 5,717 Posts
    • 3,774 Thanks
    The Boss
    Ok. I'll bite. People on here with defaults and ccjs reporting "excellent" scores, some of 999. They would never be accepted for anything but sub prime credit (and even that isnt a cert).

    I rest my case.
    • JKSandy
    • By JKSandy 8th Apr 14, 11:20 PM
    • 697 Posts
    • 368 Thanks
    JKSandy
    "they don't get rich from us paying 2"

    Right they don't, that why they charge up to 14.99 for a report with a score PER month.
  • a4a
    Yes that was a scam letter:

    http://www.aquacard.co.uk/fraudalert

    "We only approve customers for an aqua card if they apply directly with us and do not pass applicants details to any other provider"
    Originally posted by JKSandy
    Thats very interesting. So who would have sent it to her? I will get her to call Aqua tomorrow and ask them. I will also ask her to check the address on the letter/application form.
  • a4a
    Ok. I'll bite. People on here with defaults and ccjs reporting "excellent" scores, some of 999. They would never be accepted for anything but sub prime credit (and even that isnt a cert).

    I rest my case.
    Originally posted by The Boss
    Thats fair enough but also I'm sure many with a score that does reflect their true credit position.

    I honestly don't know why you are arguing with me. Why am I not allowed my opinion?
  • a4a
    "they don't get rich from us paying 2"

    Right they don't, that why they charge up to 14.99 for a report with a score PER month.
    Originally posted by JKSandy
    Yes, its a total rip off but I believe they make their real money by selling useful information, including their own unique scoring system which they boast about, to their customers.
    • The Boss
    • By The Boss 8th Apr 14, 11:50 PM
    • 5,717 Posts
    • 3,774 Thanks
    The Boss
    Thats fair enough but also I'm sure many with a score that does reflect their true credit position.

    I honestly don't know why you are arguing with me. Why am I not allowed my opinion?
    Originally posted by a4a
    Ahh I see. It's ok for them to be way out as long as some people are accurately assessed. I've got this great watch that I'd love to sell to you. It doesnt work, but it is right twice a day so it fits your criteria.

    I'm arguing because, in your words, this is a discussion board.

    There is plenty of evidence from people on here as to why the "scores" are useless and other evidence including the fact that application data such as salary is a key driver in lenders' decisions. Because Experian etc build bespoke scoring matrices for some lenders it does not give their "score" any credibility when so many different matrices are used by different lenders for different products and using data from other sources. What have they modelled the "score" matrix on even? One lender, or a mish mash of several?
    Last edited by The Boss; 08-04-2014 at 11:53 PM.
  • a4a
    Ahh I see. It's ok for them to be way out as long as some people are accurately assessed. I've got this great watch that I'd love to sell to you. It doesnt work, but it is right twice a day so it fits your criteria.

    I'm arguing because, in your words, this is a discussion board.

    There is plenty of evidence from people on here as to why the "scores" are useless and other evidence including the fact that application data such as salary is a key driver in lenders' decisions. Because Experian etc build bespoke scoring matrices for some lenders it does not give their "score" any credibility when so many different matrices are used by different lenders for different products and using data from other sources. What have they modelled the "score" matrix on even? One lender, or a mish mash of several?
    Originally posted by The Boss
    You are absolutely right but unfortunately missing my whole point.

    I agree with your synopsis here completely and that is why I am trying to get my point across. You keep saying they are meaningless, I say they are not.

    They may be wrong and inaccurate but they are certainly not meaningless. I believe more than ever now, having read pages and pages of CRA sites and having listened to someone who worked for a lender, that these scores ARE used by lenders, therefore they are not meaningless.

    In some cases they are accurate and in others they aren't. Looking through a number of threads, the biggest issue seems to be when someone has no credit and is given a 999 score.

    I believe they are used by lenders carrying out a soft search and until anyone can prove to me otherwise, I will stick with that theory for now. You keep referring to other issues such as income etc and again I completely agree but this is based on a full application and I keep saying that I believe these scores are based on a soft or initial search basis.

    So where does that leave us? It leaves us with the problem that lenders (in some cases) are looking at information that (again in some cases) is not correct.

    I don't know what the % of accuracy is, but I suspect its more accurate than not but the problem lies in that there is sufficient inaccurate information out there and that is a concern.

    The reason I am so interested in this, is that I am building a much bigger picture of the way CRA's handle information and how outdated their systems are.
  • a4a
    Well your Experian and Equifax score is better because you pay for it. So normally when people pay the service providers want their consumer to feel good and hope that they will pay again for another report next time. It has been reported in this forum a few people have few defaults yet still get a good score ...
    You know if people have unsettled defaults, bankruptcy, the lender will avoid the borrower like a plague ...

    Noodle is free. So it might be more honest to reflect the people circumstances as they do not have any interest. It is only that their lacking of data but time will tell as the more people subscribe the better they will become. This is what the CRAs should be, it should be free as their selling people data.
    Originally posted by adindas
    I agree but so long as they hold a monopoly they will continue to charge. If the industry grew and more CRA's came along and threatened their territory, prices would fall and eventually be free. But sadly, there is not enough competition because the lenders don't want it as they work closely with CRA's and keep control over us.
    • The Boss
    • By The Boss 9th Apr 14, 12:21 AM
    • 5,717 Posts
    • 3,774 Thanks
    The Boss
    You are absolutely right but unfortunately missing my whole point.

    I agree with your synopsis here completely and that is why I am trying to get my point across. You keep saying they are meaningless, I say they are not.

    They may be wrong and inaccurate but they are certainly not meaningless. I believe more than ever now, having read pages and pages of CRA sites and having listened to someone who worked for a lender, that these scores ARE used by lenders, therefore they are not meaningless.

    In some cases they are accurate and in others they aren't. Looking through a number of threads, the biggest issue seems to be when someone has no credit and is given a 999 score.

    I believe they are used by lenders carrying out a soft search and until anyone can prove to me otherwise, I will stick with that theory for now. You keep referring to other issues such as income etc and again I completely agree but this is based on a full application and I keep saying that I believe these scores are based on a soft or initial search basis.

    So where does that leave us? It leaves us with the problem that lenders (in some cases) are looking at information that (again in some cases) is not correct.

    I don't know what the % of accuracy is, but I suspect its more accurate than not but the problem lies in that there is sufficient inaccurate information out there and that is a concern.

    The reason I am so interested in this, is that I am building a much bigger picture of the way CRA's handle information and how outdated their systems are.
    Originally posted by a4a
    And you are missing my point, perhaps from being too easily influenced by the CRAs.

    So for the final time...

    Just because Experian etc sell scoring matrices to lenders, it doesnt mean that their "scores" paid for by the public use the same matrix. Therefore, the scores on the CRA files would not be the same as the lenders are sold by Experian because the scoring matrix built by Experian would not score in the same way as the Experian public scores.

    There's not much else to say, so I'm not going to. And if you still want to argue with the above (again) then you can only be trolling.
  • a4a
    And you are missing my point, perhaps from being too easily influenced by the CRAs.

    So for the final time...

    Just because Experian etc sell scoring matrices to lenders, it doesnt mean that their "scores" paid for by the public use the same matrix. Therefore, the scores on the CRA files would not be the same as the lenders are sold by Experian because the scoring matrix built by Experian would not score in the same way as the Experian public scores.

    There's not much else to say, so I'm not going to. And if you still want to argue with the above (again) then you can only be trolling.
    Originally posted by The Boss
    I am not arguing I am discussing but it is clear that you are the boss and if someone doesnt accept your opinion then they they are either a spammer, a troll or an argumentative person.

    It''s a great shame that you simply refuse to accept anyone else's opinion, so I too will finish discussing this with you suffice to say you cannot show any evidence as to why CRA's would use one score for lenders and another for consumers which is quite frankly absurd and would be an extremely expensive exercise for them but hey ho.

    I will however continue putting my opinion on this matter across to other members as I think they need to hear both sides.
    • The Boss
    • By The Boss 9th Apr 14, 12:35 AM
    • 5,717 Posts
    • 3,774 Thanks
    The Boss
    That's easily answered by their use of the word "bespoke" for the lenders matrices. Different lenders have different criteria. It's not something "one size fits all" like the CRA's incomplete scores.

    I was always open minded but 7 years of evidence has changed that whereas you have come on here with an agenda and a determination to only collate information to support your agenda. I have no issue with discussion, but I do with constant rhetoric when trying to build your case and discredit others, and with having to discuss the same thing in multiple places.
    Last edited by The Boss; 09-04-2014 at 12:39 AM.
  • a4a
    As I said before, I do not wish to discuss this with you anymore. You clearly do not want to listen to anyone else's opinions. Because you have been on here longer than me, you clearly know more about the industry despite me having background knowledge and providing information to back up my opinion.
  • BillJones
    Why are so many people fixated with believing CRA credit scores are made up numbers?
    Originally posted by a4a
    Because, as has been patiently explained to you several times now, no one number is a sufficiently useful metric for deciding whether to extend any particular customer credit for any particular reason.

    The events that lead to person A having a higher score than person B may still lead a company to prefer to lend to B rather than A. This is why the number is referred to as "made up", as companies will always refer to the actual events listed in the file, not a credit agency's subjective scoring of these events.
  • BillJones
    Because you have been on here longer than me, you clearly know more about the industry despite me having background knowledge and providing information to back up my opinion.
    Originally posted by a4a
    Wow. So you admit that they know more than you on this subject, yet still want to push your agenda?

    Are you drunk?
  • a4a
    I honestly do get that and fully understand it.

    I also agree that lenders may not take notice (although some may) but I don't agree that they are 'made up', especially because as you correctly say they are based on 'a credit agency's **** scoring of these events'. I have taken out the word subjective as this means influenced by personal feelings and I'm not sure computers have many feelings (that was a bit of light heartedness before anyone jumps down my throat).

    As I have said several times before, I really am not trying to be argumentative, i am trying to be constructive. I have found information on CRA's websites that imply that lenders do (or can) use CRA's scores and as I have stated elsewhere, I agree that these scores are not always correct, which means lenders are looking at wrong information if they use them, which is quite worrying.
    • 1DayAAT
    • By 1DayAAT 9th Apr 14, 10:17 AM
    • 222 Posts
    • 463 Thanks
    1DayAAT
    My Noddle has never gone below 4/5 but recently when I paid off a Tesco loan early, it hopped to 5/5 where it has stayed ever since. I have nothing negative on my file at all and never have - two perfectly serviced credit cards, a couple of loans in the past that have been settled and one still running, a mortgage paid off from a previous property I sold and a Vodafone contract running - never ever missed or been late on any payment, to anyone ever - I'd like a 6/5
    Debt Free 08/08/2014
    ]
  • a4a
    My Noddle has never gone below 4/5 but recently when I paid off a Tesco loan early, it hopped to 5/5 where it has stayed ever since. I have nothing negative on my file at all and never have - two perfectly serviced credit cards, a couple of loans in the past that have been settled and one still running, a mortgage paid off from a previous property I sold and a Vodafone contract running - never ever missed or been late on any payment, to anyone ever - I'd like a 6/5
    Originally posted by 1DayAAT
    Well done you. Nice to see, like me, you have a CRA "credit" score that correctly corresponds with your circumstances.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,526Posts Today

7,124Users online

Martin's Twitter