MBFS UK - Declined Applications

[Spin_bowler]

Why not just buy without using finance?

Here we go Wine open DM? Cheers.

 

[Dieselman]

Here we go Wine open DM? Cheers.

Not sure what you mean? The dealer were quite happy to accept my debit card when I bought my car.

 

[Spin_bowler]

Not sure what you mean? The dealer were quite happy to accept my debit card when I bought my car.

Mine too but I also understand why people use finance and I would myself now if buying a new car but you seem to think it makes people less worthy somehow and never miss an opportunity to let them know.

 

[Dieselman]

Mine too but I also understand why people use finance and I would myself now if buying a new car but you seem to think it makes people less worthy somehow and never miss an opportunity to let them know.

Where did I say that?

The O/p had a credit problem, so use capital until that is sorted. It will be better in the long run.

 

[moff]

There is the issue of confidence. Just like the ratings agencies.

The credit agencies exude confidence. The banks and others who depend no them feed on and reflect that confidence.

Just like the big ratngs agencies nobody really wants to question the value of these agencies because they perform a function that allows decision making (ie. risk) to be commoditised.

My strong view is that credit agencies should be reglated by specific legislation - a sort of consumer credit and financial information act. It would make them liable for some kinds of errors (though that liability would be controlled) and make them auditable.

One aspect I find particularly odious is credit ratings agencies making money from consumers subscribing to access and interact with their files.

This should be a free obligation in order to be allowed to hold and provide information on somebody. Moreover people should have a right to know not just what information is held but to know who has accessed their information.

So you don't think CRA's are regulated? Of course they are and they are treated as a Data Controller by the DPA and Data Commissioner. CRA's follow the DPA to the letter. There is also a regulatory body called SCOR that oversees regulation and use of the data.

For info there are only 3 in the UK and not to be confused with the corporate rating agencies such as S&P and Moody's etc.

I don't understand why people think they are out of date - they're not. Data is updated monthly and scores are built to predict future behaviour. Some also provide affordability checks to show if a consumer is able to afford the credit line by examining current credit position, so not only based on performance to date but by also examining headroom.

Since the average CRA inputs around 500m records per annum it is impossible to eyeball every record that is uploaded so CRA's rely on the provider to pass across accurate data. Where it is not accurate it's easy for a consumer to change.

As I have mentioned Noddle is free and does not require the consumer to spend money to access their credit rating. It will quite clearly show which organisations have accessed your credit report in the search history.

 

[moff]

So what do you do then?

If you work in this industry then you must also know that D&B/Experian/Infospectrum reports are often flawed and out of date?

Take J. Aron & Company for example, they are an indirect subsidiary of Goldman Sachs (arguably the largest IB in the word!) D&B had them listed as liquidated back in the mid 90's yet they were listed on Goldman Sach's annual returns for this year as a wholly owned sub!!!

Bearing in mind the fact that in this example we are looking at a massive company (MiFID ECP) and D&B have screwed up, I'm sure this leaves the scope open for even more mistakes/screw ups on reports on smaller companies and individuals?

I don't work in the commercial side, consumer only. Obviously I can't comment on example given as I don't know anything about it.

 

[Dryce]

So you don't think CRA's are regulated? Of course they are and they are treated as a Data Controller by the DPA and Data Commissioner. CRA's follow the DPA to the letter. There is also a regulatory body called SCOR that oversees regulation and use of the data.

ICO is about protection and not accuracy/reliability. Is SCOR not also about sharing / protection rather than accuracy/reliability?

For info there are only 3 in the UK and not to be confused with the corporate rating agencies such as S&P and Moody's etc.

No confusion. Just an analogy.

I don't understand why people think they are out of date - they're not. Data is updated monthly and scores are built to predict future behaviour. Some also provide affordability checks to show if a consumer is able to afford the credit line by examining current credit position, so not only based on performance to date but by also examining headroom.

Since the average CRA inputs around 500m records per annum it is impossible to eyeball every record that is uploaded so CRA's rely on the provider to pass across accurate data. Where it is not accurate it's easy for a consumer to change.

Organisations with their own relatively stable databases with much lower transaction / acquisition rates have enough problems keeping information coherent and clean.

And the problem with it being 'easy for the consumer to change' is that it is potentially very inconvenient. Worse - it may be difficult to determine what has gone wrong in the decision chain.

As I have mentioned Noddle is free and does not require the consumer to spend money to access their credit rating. It will quite clearly show which organisations have accessed your credit report in the search history.

And Noddle require that you disclose more information to access their service.

And as always they want to provide information about you to third parties.

Not really very satisfactory. Just an extension of the underlying CRA system to accumulate and peddle personal information.

My view is that the setup of Noddle and CreditExpert is pretty sleazy.

 

[moff]

Dryce - Think you are being awkward and don't really have a grasp of the credit referencing / financial services world to be honest.

How you can say Noddle is sleazy is beyond me and proves the above. At the end of the day a CRA is a business that needs to make profits like all others, it is not a government agency nor is it a not for profit organisation and much better for it they are.

Give me an example of another organisation that relies on multiple 3rd parties for 400-500m items of data to process that eyeballs all of them?

A CRA isn't the decision maker in any decision in the process, it is always the underwriters, CRA data is used as part of a decision based on the rules that lenders apply to it.

I'll stop now as this isn't on topic.

 

[Dryce]

Dryce - Think you are being awkward and don't really have a grasp of the credit referencing / financial services world to be honest.

I suspect I have a rather better grasp of the reality of these data collections than most.

How you can say Noddle is sleazy is beyond me and proves the above.

It is GALLING that not only do they collect and hold information in the manner that they do but that they also try and make a business of allowing the parties on which they hold information access to it.

It's actually disgusting. And obviously people involved in this sector won't get it.

At the end of the day a CRA is a business that needs to make profits like all others, it is not a government agency nor is it a not for profit organisation and much better for it they are.

There's no issue as to whether it makes profit or not.

The issue is the amount of information being handled and connected and used as a reference by third parties. The industry sells itself as if it has something more tangible than it has.

I can assure you that its information is less clean and clear cut than it *will ever own up to* because it has to puff itserlf up based on confidence.

If this was HMG doing what they do there would be an outccry.

Give me an example of another organisation that relies on multiple 3rd parties for 400-500m items of data to process that eyeballs all of them?

That's a pointless comment.

A CRA isn't the decision maker in any decision in the process, it is always the underwriters, CRA data is used as part of a decision based on the rules that lenders apply to it.

The consultants' excuse. Pay us money but *you* make the decision.

The prtoblem is tat organisations want to commoditise decision making. And that's exactly what got the large institutions into so much of a mess.

Doing this at the retail level is no better.

I'll stop now as this isn't on topic.

I have no vested interest in these organisations.

So I don't need to defend them.

I'm not being awkward - I'm mad as hell about this state of affairs.

 

[EClassy]

Probably worth noting the following:

There are 3 key business information / credit score providers:
1. Dunn and Bradstreet
2. Experian
3. Graydons

If you apply for finance as a consumer they will check you as a consumer. If you apply as a business they check as a business and for sole traders sometimes as a consumer too.

My industry so I know it well!

Hi

Maybe you can give me some free advice here. Recently been a victim of identity theft where there was a flurry of applications in my name over a 2 month period. Person managed to open a current account in my name and then a payday loan for a small amount under £500 was taken out in my name. This loan was paid into the current account. Current account now closed and payday loan comapny still investigating. CIFAS protective registration taken out.

I check my file every 6 months and thats the only reason I knew about this cause. The fraud was being carried out from an old address so debit card and any applications forms to sign would have ben sent to that address. I am 99% certain who has done this but the police are not interested and I only got an ActionFraud reference number.

Looking at my credit file, the search that set it off was by Graydons and for a company who after I did a little research online I found out is a one man business owned by a Nigerian (I have his name). I also found out through the internet that this chap works for Royal Mail in a sorting centre not far from where I live.

I am just trying to understand why the scammers had to do this search first.

• Was it in order to get some more information?

• What could be the reason for this recruitment company to be doing a credit search in my name?

 

[miro]

Since most of the long standing members are putting on this green, I thought I would cut through the haze and put up a proposition which may solve all of the problems.

Get money.

 

[RhysC63?]

Resurrecting the thread on declined credit (sorry!)

I happened across this post this evening as I was catching up with the news

I know I'm at high risk of being shouted at for resurrecting a post that is past it's sell by date, but just in case there are some people who might still be interested in this, I have a pretty good idea of why this credit was refused if my experiences over the last 5 years are anything to go by.

If you read the email from MB, the answer lies in there. Essentially they, like many companies, are **** scared of dealing with partnerships simply because it deviates from the "normal" process of either dealing with a person or a more common business entity (i.e. Limited company or PLC)
Notice how the mail mentions that they can't put the contract in the company name, but they can't put it in an individuals name either because both partners would be "owning" the vehicle. So this, in my opinion, is actually nothing to do with credit worthiness, it's about MB finance not having the appropriate mechanisms in place to be able to form a contract with a partnership. With the correct legal advice and a bit of work on creating new contract templates, I'm sure they could figure out a solution, but are unlikely to do so because it's easier to just refuse to deal with it.

I've been trying to run a business as a partnership for 5 years now, unfortunately this is a common problem - it even extends to many companies unwilling to do business with us simply because their contracts are all geared towards working with limited companies or PLCs. Even a simple task such as opening a bank account was a tedious and lengthy affair, because the majority of banks were not used to dealing with an LLP formation.

I'm sad to say that after years of banging my head against this brick wall, I've given up on it and have formed a limited company, things are now much easier, which is ironic considering that the reason to go LLP in the first place was to create a business that was easier to administer.

Sorry once again for digging an old thread up, but I thought this might be useful information to anyone in a similar position.

 

[Charles Morgan]

Ah yes, the tick box mentality.

I remember having problems setting up a company bank account with Barclays because my company secretary was a company. They kept on insisting that it had to be a person, which I pointed out was what a company was.

 

[Fudger]

If you read the email from MB, the answer lies in there. Essentially they, like many companies, are **** scared of dealing with partnerships simply because it deviates from the "normal" process of either dealing with a person or a more common business entity (i.e. Limited company or PLC)

I agree with this but it is astonishing that a finance company would consider a small company with limited liability less risky than a partnership with no liability where the partners have their whole lives hanging on the line. Bearing in mind they could ask for guarantees to mitigate risk, I agree with Charles when he said "Ah yes, the tick box mentality."

 

[FaeLLe]

Had amazing finance experience with Mercedes Benz with just 1 year of credit history.
As I was out of the country for the past few years they could not find "any" credit record history records at my previous addresses.

Even though the electronic application failed they had a manual look at my application, asked for a company letterhead showing my income and it got approved the same day.

This is after having taking out a mortgage just two months ago

At the end of the day the thread starter is missing the point, the credit score number means very little.... each application is evaluated on its own merit and the organisation felt the application is too risky to lend to; period.

 

[Scott_F]

At the end of the day the thread starter is missing the point, the credit score number means very little.... each application is evaluated on its own merit and the organisation felt the application is too risky to lend to; period.

Don't let it worry you - he hasn't posted for well over 2 years !