Often they actually want you to apply regardless as depending on your credit they’ll offer you different products or APRs - if you know the rules you’ll be able to play their game and get the best rates which they obviously don’t want.
My score has varied quite a bit over the last year. They seem to increase your score when new credit is taken (not too much though) or credit limit is increased. Using less than 50% of credit is a positive.
Having too many hard searches is a negative.
I do find there information takes a while to update.
My current score is very similar to yours and the same factors as you.
Does anyone have a top score?
The 3 CRAs do seem to vary in scores and what they report.
My score has been rubbish for years! With no good reason most of the time. Lately i know it’s because I applied for a few things in one go. But now that I know to pay more attention to the information held as supposed to the score I’ll worry a bit less.
To be honest this whole credit history industry is really scammy. How is it even legal to hold personal information about someone and not even give them access without paying? (And even if you pay you never get the raw data)
This is one of the things I miss about France - they don’t have such bullshit there. Instead each lender asks you for paperwork backing up your employment and ability to pay and then is free to do their own checks (if they’re friends with your bank they might ask them for example) but there’s no central database that holds your data hostage.
I feel the same, it seems like one big scam. One thing I was wondering, is what is the incentive for banks/utilities/etc. to report to the CRAs? In the Overdrafts post, Venkat said the following:
It made me wonder why it’s in Monzo’s interest to share this information with more agencies? Do institutions that report to the CRAs get paid to do so?
I would assume that it’s mutual benefit - if you’re a lender and you want to access credit information you’re also bound by your contract with the credit bureau to report about and snitch on your customers.
As far as utilities are concerned I’ve got no idea - the benefit of a credit check seems nil considering the amount of “credit” you’re giving out is minimal.
Possibly, but the quote above from Venkat sounds like at the moment they’re only reporting to one agency, and sharing with more is an aspiration, as opposed to being required so they can credit check overdraft applications. But your assumption makes sense (in the perverse world we live in ).
Would it not be the case that if they share with more agencies they can search more agencies?
Just thinking a company may have little info on you but if they can search 3 agencies they would know if you would be a profitable customer with a lower risk profile.
ClearScore refuse to give me a rating (apparantly there isn’t enought known about me!) whereas Experian give me 989/999 - I find the difference startling!
Did anyone else watch this TV series…
His whole thing was about the trouble with credit scoring.
He has massive problems getting a banking licence.
Pretty sure the one highlighted above is not a good thing in the eyes of lenders, so maybe lowering that would increase your score?
I don’t trust these credit scores though. I know you didn’t ask for opinions in the OP but I feel there is so much blind trust in these scores that it needs to be pointed out all the time in case there is anyone out there who actually thinks a credit reference agency or application built on top of one is actually telling you precisely how likely you are to get credit. It is just a ballpark estimate and you could get credit with a low score or be declined credit with a high score.
There are too many variations in the queries lenders run against your credit report and other factors at play for these scores to be accurate. For example you could have a flawless credit score on clearscore but the credit card lender you apply to has a query in their scoring to ensure that only applicants who carry large balances every month but always pay back on time will be successful in their application, so the lender will get more income. This may be at odds with clear score who give you a higher score for having “relatively low credit card % utilisation”.
Also you could have the highest score in the world but the amount a lender wants to lend can vary massively (shout out to anyone who applied for anything in 2008) and you could get declined just because they already lent out more than the amount they planned to lend out this period. So clearscore could give you an idea of where you stand with the bullet points above, but to give you a number to denote how good you are is a bit misleading imho.
Possibly, however I’m hearing conflicting stories on this one. Other sources suggest that having a higher credit limit (without necessarily using that limit) shows that you can manage credit very well and therefore less likely to default. I imagine that either opinion could be correct depending on the lender’s attitude towards lending.
I want this higher limit solely because I regularly use shyster car hire companies offering low-priced rentals but stop a large amount on my cc because I refuse to take out their ridiculously expensive excess insurance to supplement their lower hire charges. I have an annual icarinsurance policy which offers excellent cover at much lower premiums.
I’m at an age where I’m hoping to retire early within the next couple of years and I’m financially solvent, so I’m not really trying to increase my score as I’ve no need for further loans or credit. I’m honestly just interested in what other factors ClearScore consider to be positive.
I suppose we’ll never know for sure, but if I had £5000 to lend and one applicant had an income of 30k and used £1,000 of their £2,000available (50% used) and their twin also has an income of 30k but used £1,000 of their £20,000 available (only 5% used), I think I would most certainly lend to the first one. The second one is being trusted with more money but a) why are they asking for more credit / will they even use your credit to generate you any income / are they just stoozing your assets, and b) that is a lot of available funds for them to do a runner with if they get into trouble elsewhere or turn out to be a fraudster.
The levels of acceptable risk to the lender can vary enormously from one lender to another. It often depends on what the loan is for, and what security is offered against the loan, as well as what credit they already have at their disposable.
Each of your examples is likely to get a better deal by going to different lenders. All things being equal, either example could run off with your £5000
ClearScore - 482/700 (69%)
Experian - 972/999 (97%)
Which one is correct though…
My HoddzScore says my score is 6,000,000 / 6,000,000
Surely that one is correct
My Clearscore rating was previously pretty good and then plumetted in the month or two after I moved earlier this year. Still not quite sure why, unless there’s a lag as a couple of accounts still have the old address as I was a little lazy in updating them.
Not an issue right now as I have no need for credit, but I’m concerned to get my rating soaring again prior to any mortgage applications.
Moving can be seen as a negative factor for for several months as during this time you are more likely to get yourself into financial difficulties with purchasing new items etc. Once you’re on the electoral register things should start to go back up
I think that credit bureaus also take into account the history of a particular address, so if many people before you had bad credit at your new address then your score might decrease without any fault of yours. Pretty problematic for house shares, etc.