Jump to content

Please consider disabling your adblocker for CreditBoards if you have not already done so.  This site depends on advertising revenue to stay online.


Odd Denial Excuse

Recommended Posts

A client was declined by Synchrony for a very odd reason given:

 

"High Risk Source of Address"

 

When the denial was given at the point of application she was appalled as she had never been turned down for credit ever.

 

This is a white labeled credit card underwritten by Sync for home improvements.

 

Any indication of what this means in layman terms. She will not call to get further explanation and when I called they 

would not elaborate with me as I am not the consumer.

 

sIT6HH8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something with the address tripped a fraud flag with TU.

 

Does the consumer have any addresses on his or her report that belong to a current (or former) UPS Store; Mailboxes, Etc. location, or similar type of business?

 

I'm not specifically asking about the address that was used on this credit app.

 

 

Edited by cv91915

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it was the city/state but more likely something with the mailing address itself...which could be a PO Box, commercial receptacle or a household associated with prior losses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, centex said:

I doubt it was the city/state but more likely something with the mailing address itself...which could be a PO Box, commercial receptacle or a household associated with prior losses...

The address on the denial letter is the same address as the home.

 

I am not positive if a different mailing address was used on the online application and it will not let me see application details on the Sync backend.

 

If the address has had multiple Sync losses I can see that as the reason, regardless if I agree with it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pandmel said:

The address on the denial letter is the same address as the home.

 

I am not positive if a different mailing address was used on the online application and it will not let me see application details on the Sync backend.

 

If the address has had multiple Sync losses I can see that as the reason, regardless if I agree with it or not.

The address question, even if it is his home, does not preclude it being flagged as commercial or in other records as a risk-related addy.  It is not uncommon, especially since the advent of the internet, to see home-based businesses that turn a residence into a commercial record in far too many databases.  I've also seen this in SOME places where a tear-down saw a piece of property go from commercial to residential. 

 

It is also still unknown whether this is a multi-family setting or a single-family residence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there was a time that some issuers blacklisted addresses if there was ever a default/loss even if by a previous owner/renter. I'm not sure if any still use such a shotgun-to-kill-a-fly approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's key to note that a google search of the adverse reason only pops up other experience by Synchrony (or it's former identity, GE Credit/GECC).

 

What I take away from this is that the credit decision has nothing to do with anything flagged by TU.  Instead, it reflects other adverse credit performance by others formerly at that address, or in the near vicinity.

 

Given that this is the first I've heard of such an adverse reason being cited in a credit decision, I come away with two possible alternate conclusions:

 

-- Other creditors also deny on a similar basis, but misrepresent the key reason by citing other less that perfect credit attributes in the adverse notice letter, or ...

 

-- Other creditors may initially flag an application for a similar reason for additional review, but NEVER decline solely for that reason alone.  Synchrony (aka suckrony) stands alone in shutting down an application for circumstances that have little to do with the applicant themselves.

 

(Want to guess which of these two alternate explanations I favor?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.





  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      179,408
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    Highbury
    Joined

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines