Guide urges credit refusers to say why without details
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.New guidelines on credit scoring will require providers to tell those they refuse whether it is because they have failed a scoring test or because there is a black mark in their credit history.
The guidelines, which take effect from 12 November, are explained in an updated version of the Office of Fair Trading's booklet No Credit?
Stores, credit card companies, banks and building societies are reluctant to divulge details of the way credit assessment works, for fear of fraud.
But the guidelines say that, without jeopardising the security of the system, consumers should be given as clear an explanation as possible for any refusal of credit.
For instance, they will be told that their score was not high enough, that adverse information was received from a credit reference agency, or that a particular policy, such as refusing the unemployed or those over-committed with debts, triggered the refusal.
Sir Bryan Carsberg, director-general of the Office of Fair Trading, says in a foreword to the guide: 'Of course, lenders have the right to decide whether or not to grant credit, and must be allowed to protect the integrity of their assessment systems against manipulation and fraud. These principles are, however, not incompatible with the greater openness which the guide promotes.'
In Money Grouse last week a reader complained that he was not told why he had been refused credit by House of Fraser. But the store did say that he had failed the credit scoring test, and this complies with the new guidelines.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments