Search
00
GBAF Logo
trophy
Top StoriesInterviewsBusinessFinanceBankingTechnologyInvestingTradingVideosAwardsMagazinesHeadlinesTrends

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get the latest news and updates from our team.

Global Banking & Finance Review®

Global Banking & Finance Review® - Subscribe to our newsletter

Company

    GBAF Logo
    • About Us
    • Advertising and Sponsorship
    • Profile & Readership
    • Contact Us
    • Latest News
    • Privacy & Cookies Policies
    • Terms of Use
    • Advertising Terms
    • Issue 81
    • Issue 80
    • Issue 79
    • Issue 78
    • Issue 77
    • Issue 76
    • Issue 75
    • Issue 74
    • Issue 73
    • Issue 72
    • Issue 71
    • Issue 70
    • View All
    • About the Awards
    • Awards Timetable
    • Awards Winners
    • Submit Nominations
    • Testimonials
    • Media Room
    • FAQ
    • Asset Management Awards
    • Brand of the Year Awards
    • Business Awards
    • Cash Management Banking Awards
    • Banking Technology Awards
    • CEO Awards
    • Customer Service Awards
    • CSR Awards
    • Deal of the Year Awards
    • Corporate Governance Awards
    • Corporate Banking Awards
    • Digital Transformation Awards
    • Fintech Awards
    • Education & Training Awards
    • ESG & Sustainability Awards
    • ESG Awards
    • Forex Banking Awards
    • Innovation Awards
    • Insurance & Takaful Awards
    • Investment Banking Awards
    • Investor Relations Awards
    • Leadership Awards
    • Islamic Banking Awards
    • Real Estate Awards
    • Project Finance Awards
    • Process & Product Awards
    • Telecommunication Awards
    • HR & Recruitment Awards
    • Trade Finance Awards
    • The Next 100 Global Awards
    • Wealth Management Awards
    • Travel Awards
    • Years of Excellence Awards
    • Publishing Principles
    • Ownership & Funding
    • Corrections Policy
    • Editorial Code of Ethics
    • Diversity & Inclusion Policy
    • Fact Checking Policy
    Original content: Global Banking and Finance Review - https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com

    A global financial intelligence and recognition platform delivering authoritative insights, data-driven analysis, and institutional benchmarking across Banking, Capital Markets, Investment, Technology, and Financial Infrastructure.

    Copyright © 2010-2026 - All Rights Reserved. | Sitemap | Tags

    Editorial & Advertiser disclosure

    Global Banking & Finance Review® is an online platform offering news, analysis, and opinion on the latest trends, developments, and innovations in the banking and finance industry worldwide. The platform covers a diverse range of topics, including banking, insurance, investment, wealth management, fintech, and regulatory issues. The website publishes news, press releases, opinion and advertorials on various financial organizations, products and services which are commissioned from various Companies, Organizations, PR agencies, Bloggers etc. These commissioned articles are commercial in nature. This is not to be considered as financial advice and should be considered only for information purposes. It does not reflect the views or opinion of our website and is not to be considered an endorsement or a recommendation. We cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of any information provided with respect to your individual or personal circumstances. Please seek Professional advice from a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. We link to various third-party websites, affiliate sales networks, and to our advertising partners websites. When you view or click on certain links available on our articles, our partners may compensate us for displaying the content to you or make a purchase or fill a form. This will not incur any additional charges to you. To make things simpler for you to identity or distinguish advertised or sponsored articles or links, you may consider all articles or links hosted on our site as a commercial article placement. We will not be responsible for any loss you may suffer as a result of any omission or inaccuracy on the website.

    1. Home
    2. >Finance
    3. >HOW “HARD MARK” CREDIT CHECKS ARE QUIETLY COSTING CONSUMERS
    Finance

    How “hard Mark” Credit Checks Are Quietly Costing Consumers

    Published by Gbaf News

    Posted on August 24, 2017

    8 min read

    Last updated: January 21, 2026

    Add as preferred source on Google
    This image highlights commercial booster pumps, essential for improving water infrastructure, as discussed in the FMI study. The rising demand for these pumps underscores their role in HVAC systems and industrial applications.
    Commercial booster pumps enhancing water infrastructure investment - Global Banking & Finance Review
    Why waste money on news and opinion when you can access them for free?

    Take advantage of our newsletter subscription and stay informed on the go!

    Subscribe

    Sarah Jackson, Director at EquinitiPancredit

    It is not unreasonable for consumers to assume that they should be able to assess their eligibility for a loan without damaging their future prospects. The majority of lenders perform hard credit checks on customers when applying for a loan, and as a result are hiking the cost of borrowing for the customers they decline.Sarah Jackson, Director at Equiniti Pancredit, highlights the glitch in the system and explores how lenders can use automation to stay on the right side of their customers.

    TSB chief executive, Paul Pester, recently highlighted that the cost of a loan is often driven up, not because of a change in the applicant’s financial circumstances, but by the way lenders use credit checks during the application process.[1]

    To understand Pester’s point, it’s important to recognise that there are two types of credit check: hard and soft. Hard credit checks are designed to be performed at the point at which an individual formally applies for credit, such as a mortgage, credit card or car finance. These checks leave a mark, or footprint, on the individual’s credit report and impact the applicant’s future eligibility. Soft credit checks, on the other hand, are designed to be performed much earlier in the process at the enquiry stage, are ‘for information only’, and therefore have no impact on eligibility. They leave no footprint at all.

    Multiple ‘hard marks’ on an individual’s credit report suggest that the individual has unsuccessfully applied for credit from a variety of different lenders and must therefore be a high-risk candidate. Consequently, new creditors automatically categorise them as ‘higher risk’ and therefore apply a more expensive rate.

    This means that a consumer could inadvertently be damaging their credit score and hiking the cost of borrowing simply by shopping around for the best product. TSB estimates that this practice is already leading to consumers losing out by up to £400m every year.

    What can be done?

    Put simply, lenders should select their sourcing systems judiciously; not all are made equal. Sophisticated systems enable lenders to apply the right kind of checks at the appropriate time, safeguarding their customers’ credit rating while still performing eligibility assessments.

    Given the current regulatory climate, it is entirely conceivable that this process will come under scrutiny in the not-too-distant future. And so it should; some consumers are clearly getting a raw deal.

    The FCA’s renewed focus on transparency and Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) points to the direction of the market: systems that integrate governance, auditability and reporting, and clearly demonstrate responsible lending practices will be regarded favorably.

    It is important also to recognise that a portion of consumers will still be declined loans at the formal application stage. Soft checks do not guarantee success; they only indicate the likelihood that a loan will be granted.

    The end of the road?

    All too often, declined applicants must ‘go back to Old Kent Road’ and begin the entire application process again.

    This is a travesty for all parties and a colossal waste of time and resources. The customer leaves

    empty handed, the broker gets nothing and the lender fails to close on a valuable piece of business.

    A far better approach would be for the broker or lender to continue the dialogue with the applicant and immediately offer an alternative product. This would maintain the exclusivity of their customer relationship and deter them from looking elsewhere. Moreover, since the application data is already available (and further refined to take into account the reasons for the previous decline) it can be re-used, saving time for everyone.

    By using intelligent decisioning technology, all this is perfectly achievable, today.

    Declines management platforms can ensure the objectives of the broker, lender and customer can still be readily achieved even when an application fails, through the immediate identification of viable alternative credit options for newly declined applicants. These technologies not only eliminate customer disappointment by refocusing them on alternative products (safe in the knowledge that the automated affordability and eligibility checks have already been performed), but also enable lenders and brokers to generate revenue and demonstrate that they are going the extra mile for their customers.

    The magic of automation occurs only when it is expertly applied. If lenders want to make the best use of technology, they should choose their partners carefully.

    Sarah Jackson, Director at EquinitiPancredit

    It is not unreasonable for consumers to assume that they should be able to assess their eligibility for a loan without damaging their future prospects. The majority of lenders perform hard credit checks on customers when applying for a loan, and as a result are hiking the cost of borrowing for the customers they decline.Sarah Jackson, Director at Equiniti Pancredit, highlights the glitch in the system and explores how lenders can use automation to stay on the right side of their customers.

    TSB chief executive, Paul Pester, recently highlighted that the cost of a loan is often driven up, not because of a change in the applicant’s financial circumstances, but by the way lenders use credit checks during the application process.[1]

    To understand Pester’s point, it’s important to recognise that there are two types of credit check: hard and soft. Hard credit checks are designed to be performed at the point at which an individual formally applies for credit, such as a mortgage, credit card or car finance. These checks leave a mark, or footprint, on the individual’s credit report and impact the applicant’s future eligibility. Soft credit checks, on the other hand, are designed to be performed much earlier in the process at the enquiry stage, are ‘for information only’, and therefore have no impact on eligibility. They leave no footprint at all.

    Multiple ‘hard marks’ on an individual’s credit report suggest that the individual has unsuccessfully applied for credit from a variety of different lenders and must therefore be a high-risk candidate. Consequently, new creditors automatically categorise them as ‘higher risk’ and therefore apply a more expensive rate.

    This means that a consumer could inadvertently be damaging their credit score and hiking the cost of borrowing simply by shopping around for the best product. TSB estimates that this practice is already leading to consumers losing out by up to £400m every year.

    What can be done?

    Put simply, lenders should select their sourcing systems judiciously; not all are made equal. Sophisticated systems enable lenders to apply the right kind of checks at the appropriate time, safeguarding their customers’ credit rating while still performing eligibility assessments.

    Given the current regulatory climate, it is entirely conceivable that this process will come under scrutiny in the not-too-distant future. And so it should; some consumers are clearly getting a raw deal.

    The FCA’s renewed focus on transparency and Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) points to the direction of the market: systems that integrate governance, auditability and reporting, and clearly demonstrate responsible lending practices will be regarded favorably.

    It is important also to recognise that a portion of consumers will still be declined loans at the formal application stage. Soft checks do not guarantee success; they only indicate the likelihood that a loan will be granted.

    The end of the road?

    All too often, declined applicants must ‘go back to Old Kent Road’ and begin the entire application process again.

    This is a travesty for all parties and a colossal waste of time and resources. The customer leaves

    empty handed, the broker gets nothing and the lender fails to close on a valuable piece of business.

    A far better approach would be for the broker or lender to continue the dialogue with the applicant and immediately offer an alternative product. This would maintain the exclusivity of their customer relationship and deter them from looking elsewhere. Moreover, since the application data is already available (and further refined to take into account the reasons for the previous decline) it can be re-used, saving time for everyone.

    By using intelligent decisioning technology, all this is perfectly achievable, today.

    Declines management platforms can ensure the objectives of the broker, lender and customer can still be readily achieved even when an application fails, through the immediate identification of viable alternative credit options for newly declined applicants. These technologies not only eliminate customer disappointment by refocusing them on alternative products (safe in the knowledge that the automated affordability and eligibility checks have already been performed), but also enable lenders and brokers to generate revenue and demonstrate that they are going the extra mile for their customers.

    The magic of automation occurs only when it is expertly applied. If lenders want to make the best use of technology, they should choose their partners carefully.

    More from Finance

    Explore more articles in the Finance category

    Image for Denmark's prime minister hands in government resignation after election defeat
    Denmark's Prime Minister Hands in Government Resignation After Election Defeat
    Image for ECB's Lane flags selling prices and wages as key indicators
    ECB's Lane Flags Selling Prices and Wages as Key Indicators
    Image for UK house prices rise by least since September 2024 in January
    UK House Prices Rise by Least Since September 2024 in January
    Image for Commerzbank supervisory board committee met 11 times to discuss UniCredit in 2025
    Commerzbank Supervisory Board Committee Met 11 Times to Discuss UniCredit in 2025
    Image for Swiss air transport caterer Gategroup considers listing
    Swiss Air Transport Caterer Gategroup Considers Listing
    Image for German business sentiment fell less than expected in March, Ifo finds
    German Business Sentiment Fell Less Than Expected in March, Ifo Finds
    Image for On Holding names co-founders as CEOs
    On Holding Names Co-Founders as CEOs
    Image for ECB may need to act on even 'not-too-persistent' inflation surge, Lagarde says
    ECB May Need to Act on Even 'not-Too-Persistent' Inflation Surge, Lagarde Says
    Image for Europe's STOXX 600 gains 1% on prospect of Middle East ceasefire
    Europe's Stoxx 600 Gains 1% on Prospect of Middle East Ceasefire
    Image for Estonia says drone enters from Russia, hits power station, ERR reports
    Estonia Says Drone Enters From Russia, Hits Power Station, Err Reports
    Image for Germany's Aurelius interested in buying Carrefour's Belgian unit, L'Echo reports
    Germany's Aurelius Interested in Buying Carrefour's Belgian Unit, L'Echo Reports
    Image for Germany's EnBW expects profits to be stable at best in 2026
    Germany's EnBW Expects Profits to Be Stable at Best in 2026
    View All Finance Posts
    Previous Finance PostTax Sends Home Insurance Price Rises Through the Roof
    Next Finance PostFixed and Floating Charges