TheAA advertises 5.8% loans - SCAM or what?

Please expand what the relevance of the DPA is here.

"John Redman" wrote

Prior to last November, if you had got a copy of your report you'd have also seen all the details of any financial associates. These details are also passed to any company asking to see your report (albeit in the same "cut-down" form as for the main details, eg without credit issuers details).

However, (AFAIAA) in response to a court case - from November they stopped including the financial associates details when the credit user themself obtained their report - but continue to provide these details to companies. This is so that credit companies can get a 'better' picture of the credit status of any person who is financially associated to someone else with big debts, for instance.

Source: Experian & Equifax.

Are you sure about this? I thought the effect was to disallow "associated" information from being passed *at all*, i.e. not only not to the subject but also not to the credit companies. If they stop only the former, it means the subject is no longer able (as in the past) to give notice of disassociation, since he would no longer be aware of associations.

Is not the real data protection issue here that only the subject has given permission for information about himself to be made available to the credit companies (this permission is given as part of the application for credit), and the associated parties have not, and therefore information about them should not be passed to credit companies?

--------

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Check out my snippet from Experian's website below (this was taken just, today - it is even the first 'FAQ' on their site!).

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

That's what I would have thought, hence my concern about a possible new court case!

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Not quite - each person's report still lists the *names* of any people financially associated to them - just not their actual *data*. So, if you see the name of someone you don't want associated (and can show that you are no longer associated), you can still get the link dissolved.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Snippet from today's Experian website :-

-----------------------------------------

Why does my report contain information about other people?

Lenders may see ... financial information about other people who share a financial connection with you. They may use this to help them decide whether to give you credit. If you are financially linked to someone else, the name of this person will appear on your credit report under the Association section. If you believe that somebody else's credit report has caused a lender to refuse you credit, you may wish to ask that other person to get a copy of their own credit report. However, they do not have to do so nor do they have to show you their credit report.

If your credit report shows a financial connection that is no longer correct, you can ask us to remove it in the following ways...

At 23:54:53 on 05/03/2005, Peter Ramm delighted uk.finance by announcing:

The major companies will not do it. I know for a fact that one of the 'big four' definitely doesn't.

Given the way the system is set up in that particular bank it would be trivial to prove it given the requisite access.

Because they do not consider you to be an applicant which falls into the categories matching their credit policy for that rate.

This is commercially sensitive information and they are under no obligation to reveal the reason to you.

PPI, however, will not be the reason.

At 23:56:09 on 05/03/2005, Peter Ramm delighted uk.finance by announcing:

Rash generalisations are nonsense. Is that better? :-)

Some lenders will view multiple applications in a different way to others. They may infer that you are 'desperate for credit' and being 'rejected by other lenders' or they may infer that you are shopping around for the best deal.

At 23:04:05 on 05/03/2005, John Redman delighted uk.finance by announcing:

That is correct to a point. CRAs now provide a scoring facility to lenders. Some lenders, for instance, base their decision on the score and then look deeper into the details if the score is borderline.

Many, BTW, pay absolutely no attention to any Notice of Correction on your file.

At 23:58:08 on 05/03/2005, Peter Ramm delighted uk.finance by announcing:

The relevance is that they do not hold the data and therefore they cannot tell you exactly why a specific decision was made. Some companies, in fact, automate the whole process so that the person taking your application doesn't see this data even when it is accessed.

..................... which has absolutely nothing to do with the DPA and does not explain why "they cannot do so under the DPA"

"Peter Ramm" wrote

It's bad news for you if so. If they're only prepared to lend to you as long as they get 6.8% *plus* the enormous PPI profit, they must see you as a very poor risk indeed.

"Alex" wrote

No, still wrong. A credit check will only appear on your file once you have actually *applied* for credit. It therefore denotes multiple *applications* for credit, not "shopping around" for it. Conceivably, there are people who actually apply for multiple loans simultaneously but accept only one, but on a credit file that would look exactly like the other lenders approached had rejected the applicant.

People who have applied to mainstream lenders for credit and been rejected -- or who have applied, been accepted, and still need more credit -- are not much sought-after as customers by other mainstream lenders. Hence it is not smart or helpful to have a lot of searches in evidence.

Peter, a couple of other factors may also be affecting your credit position. If you have moved recently or frequently, if you appear to have multiple addresses, if you are not on the electoral roll at the address you applied from - all these can alarm lenders, who can't be sure they know where you are in the event of a default. If you have any existing credit cards with needlessly high limits on them, or cards you never use, get rid of them. Many credit card lenders base the card limit they'll offer you on some multiple of your income; if you appear over-committed in terms of existing available credit, you get a low limit or a rejection. Loan companies may operate similarly.

If none of the above applies, you may have insufficient history to convince a lender you can manage a loan. I take it you've been to

and requested your credit file, have you? You can get it online immediately for nothing if you take the free 30-day trial option.

"Tim" wrote

This still seems to me to imply that you see what they see.

At 00:09:31 on 08/03/2005, John Redman delighted uk.finance by announcing:

Quite so.

How do you square this with your very next paragraph?

The applicant in this case was "shopping around". With the increasing number of 'tailored' loan and credit card rates, it is no longer uncommon for people to not go ahead with an application after they find they are not offered the typical APR stated in the advert.

"John Redman" wrote

Not true at all. You *don't* get to see any of the financial details of your financial associate(s) credit accounts. The companies *do*.

Case in point: I made a credit application last December. When I check my Equifax report, I see only *my* financial details. Yet, when my wife looks at her Equifax report - she sees "search of [her] report made in December, due to financial associate application". [This actually happened.]

Does my wife have recourse to the courts under the DPA, as her report was searched **without her permission** ?? [No-one asked her, and the credit company didn't even ask me to ask her.]

Thanks - I have applied for the thirty day trial - I await with interest what it says about me - whilst I am not well off by any means, I thought I would be able to borrow the money OK. I think I've said cheerio to changing the car.

"Alex" wrote

No. The OP did *not* say he had made multiple speculative applications

- he indicated he had made one, and went on to ask if multiple credit searches are disadvantageous from a credit-scoring perspective.

They are. It matters little who rejects whom. The effect on your credit file is the same - namely, a trail of 3 or 4 credit checks, but fewer or no new credit lines subsequently in evidence.

Regardless of who decided not to proceed, that can only be interpreted in a limited number of ways, and they're all bad for would-be borrowers.

Either:-

- you were "shopping around" but were offered poor terms by several lenders, none of which you took up; or

- you approached a series of lenders and were rejected outright by all; or

- you've been given recent credit by some or all of those who've run a check on you, but you still want more credit.

Having a lot of searches can clearly never be positive. At best, it suggests you shouldn't be offered the best terms going, and at worst, it can suggest you shouldn't be offered any terms at all.

According to

"Potential over-indebtedness can cause rejection...Lenders sometimes count multiple credit applications as evidence of this, so if you're simply searching for the best price ? ensure the lender is aware you just want a quote and you are not applying or it will end up on your file."

Interesting - this seems to imply that the CRAs concede your "associates" are too remotely associated for *you* to be shown their details, but they're close enough that companies can be.

"John Redman" wrote

Never? It could indicate that you are such a good credit risk, that people are falling over themselves to try to give you credit....

Someone who can flex very large financial muscles, might expect (say) 30 days free credit on many of their large purchases - of which they may make

*lots* (because they spend an awful lot!).

They'd have lots of searches on record, but that's simply because they buy lots of goods - and have excellent payment records. Sounds pretty "positive" to me!

At 16:25:26 on 08/03/2005, John Redman delighted uk.finance by announcing:

I made no reference to the OP.

They may be.