Pee'd off.....................

[Smiffy]

Experian will be able to remove this marker once Santander fix the issue. As I said in the first reply post, Santander record payment/transactions with all three bureaus as a lender so it would still be recommended that you make sure as it won't always be Experian that lenders solely check. It might very well be all a-OK but its not something I would personally leave to chance and make sure its resolved on all of the data held.

Experian's consumer data (the stuff you and I see) runs approximately 20-30 days behind live. Lenders use Experian's CAIS data which is a real-time -1 day (IIRC) version. This may account for why you can't see it but they can.

Hopefully they get it sorted out soon, having been a victim of Lloyds incompetence in 2010 I know what its like. Thankfully, after working in credit underwriting for a few years, I understand it all better now, which is helpful.

The thing that's annoying me mate, is that the broker is using a Mortgage lender that I had never heard of. When he gave me the name, I googled it and found they were a company that specialised in "difficult" cases and would look at applications with CCJ's etc.
This was BEFORE this blip was discovered.
When I questioned it with him, he said it was because of my age (63) and he had to go with a lender that would take that into account and also take into account that the vast majority of my earnings are commission based. He told me not to worry about it, and chatting to another financial advisor bore out what he was saying.
It seems strange that a lender who deals with "difficult cases" and CCJ cases would decline a bona fida application from somebody who has such an insignificant "blip" like one late payment!!

 

[GreiginFife]

The thing that's annoying me mate, is that the broker is using a Mortgage lender that I had never heard of. When he gave me the name, I googled it and found they were a company that specialised in "difficult" cases and would look at applications with CCJ's etc.
This was BEFORE this blip was discovered.
When I questioned it with him, he said it was because of my age (63) and he had to go with a lender that would take that into account and also take into account that the vast majority of my earnings are commission based. He told me not to worry about it, and chatting to another financial advisor bore out what he was saying.
It seems strange that a lender who deals with "difficult cases" and CCJ cases would decline a bona fida application from somebody who has such an insignificant "blip" like one late payment!!

Totally understand the frustration mate. These types of lender are known as Lenders of Last Resort in the industry. Its not as bad as it sounds though. The big issue is the "main" lenders have all pretty much removed human intervention from their underwriting and "system says no" means what it says.
Smaller lenders can be more flexible, the bank I work for manually underwrite 100% of referred or "auto declined" applications which makes us more attractive. This allows us to take in to account variable but regular income like commission or dividends.

Commission based or dividend based incomes are deemed non-standard and its likely your broker knows his stuff and knows the main lenders would likely decline automatically as the system stresses on your 'fixed' income would be too great (stress is still set at around 7%) I think.

Its likely that they company he used has policy in place for age and income type but still has a reject policy on bad debt (even one measly payment) and is autoscored before anyone has had the chance to look at it. Difficult cases means a lot of different things in banking, age, income and debt are just a few of many others. It might just be that they are only equipped/prepared to deal with certain risks but not others.

The hard search they performed might be an issue, unless of course your broker will re-engage the same lender once the marker issue is sorted.

Main thing is to make sure the default is removed from all bureau data as if it gets left on Equifax and Callcredit (but removed from Experian) it can cause interest rate rises or credit limits to be reduced on borrowing you already have. As well as blocking your mortgage.

My advice would be to compose a letter (not email) to Santander's complainta team and the FCA jointly (don't try the FSA, they ceased to exist in 2010). Once Santander see the FCA is involved it tends to move them along as the FCA charge for investigations if they deem one necessary. Keep copies of said letters for follow-up should you need it.

The credit market in the UK needs a bit of a shake-up IMO around the transparency (or lack thereof) of the data these organisations hold on you at any given time rather than 30 days after the fact.

Good luck getting it sorted.

 

[Smiffy]

Main thing is to make sure the default is removed from all bureau data as if it gets left on Equifax and Callcredit (but removed from Experian) it can cause interest rate rises or credit limits to be reduced on borrowing you already have. As well as blocking your mortgage.
My advice would be to compose a letter (not email) to Santander's complainta team and the FCA jointly (don't try the FSA, they ceased to exist in 2010). Once Santander see the FCA is involved it tends to move them along as the FCA charge for investigations if they deem one necessary. Keep copies of said letters for follow-up should you need it.
The credit market in the UK needs a bit of a shake-up IMO around the transparency (or lack thereof) of the data these organisations hold on you at any given time rather than 30 days after the fact.
Good luck getting it sorted.

You have PM Greig

 

[Kellfire]

Dibby I don't want to go on about my specific claim because quite frankly it proper bogged me off. But when they (FSA) said I had asked for it, it kinda rubbed salt in the wounds. Missis T had copies of the original paperwork we signed for our mortgage back inn early 92. On it you could see where she had ticked various options for and against. You could see where we had signed it as a joint mortgage. You could then see where someone else had ticked other boxes, on of which was PPI. Now PPI could be covered for differant reasons. Death, redundancy and accident/ illness cover. One of which we wanted. Now the whole point of the claim re PPI was that if you DIDNT have it, how would you pay your mortgage. Back in 1992 I was working 6/7 days a week, Missis T was fixing hours as a fully qualified SRN/ Nurse. She worked one day a week or 7. But the previous year she earned just £1400. The basis of B and Bs rejecting the claim was that her wages would not cover the mortgage. We told them at the time of the mortgage application and the PPI claim was that Missis T could earn twice as much as me if I was off work for any length of time. Which she did when I dropped off work through an injury. What we said could happen with me being off work did happen. But conviniantly for B and B they neglected to take this on board and neither did the FSA. Furthermore, whoever ticked the PPI box ticked the wrong one. A box was ticked saying PPI would be paid if I was made redundant. Again B and B said we would of ticked that because I would not of been able to pay the mortgage. Again we told them that miners were being made redundant left right and centre when we moved in March 92 but the redundancy lump sum would of paid off the mortgage with 15 K left over. It just seems that they only wanted to listen to what was relevant to throwing out the claim.

Admit it - you DID want to go on about your specific claim, didn’t you?!

 

[Tashyboy]

Admit it - you DID want to go on about your specific claim, didn’t you?!

I didn't want to go on but to emphasise a point I had to. Quite enjoyed getting it off me chest though 👍