Joe Pitcher - Irrelevant - Wirral 24 October, 2008, 10:47 0 likes

How would this work? Would this mean that everytime I move house, change jobs, change phone numbers I have to contact the CRA to ensure they can get hold of me incase I ever apply for credit?

A Finextra member 24 October, 2008, 11:29 0 likes

Potentially, yes.

This would seem to me to be a small price to pay to ensure that my identity wasn't hijacked.  We should tell others (banks, etc.) when we do this, so adding a CRA or two wouldn't be so onerous.

A Finextra member 25 October, 2008, 10:16 0 likes

It might be even easier than that with a mobile phone.

Joe,

When you move house and get the electricity, phone, etc do you imagine they just extend you credit without checking that you paid your last bill? Perhaps any time you do anything with anyone who is a member/client of a CRA, they might not tell the CRA - who might in turn share it with their members? Perhaps your employment changes, and your new employer checked your credit rating before appointing you to a position of monetary responsibility? Would your bank like to know if your new salary is lower and your ability to repay is diminished or even increased - they can increase your rate, reduce your overdraft or perhaps offer you a bigger loan if you have had a salary increase.

Such is the world we live in.

Joe Pitcher - Irrelevant - Wirral 27 October, 2008, 10:50 0 likes

I guess the difference I see is that I contact my bank/utility company because I am a customer of theirs and they provide a service to me for which I pay. If I fail to keep them uptodate with my details they may withhold services from me.

I do not however have a relationship with a CRA and they provide no service to me. The banks/utilities are the CRA customers. I can see a lot of resistance to members of the public being told you have to contact another third party who you have no relationship with and have never contacted to supply them with your personal data in case you ever want any form of credit.

Also how would I know which CRA to contact? Do I have to phone Experian, Equifax, both?

A Finextra member 29 October, 2008, 14:19 0 likes

The data they hold relates to us and we seem to be individually liable to a degree - at the least, it is us who seem to bear the costs, aggro, etc. when it comes to that data having been misused (especially when it comes to 'rebuilding our identity').  In my book, that gives them the obligation to check with me if they are asked for a reference on my data and to do all they can - at their expense - to protect the identity that thay have constructed on my behalf.  When it is compromised by something they have done, they must repair/rebuild it, at their cost.

In any event, the CRAs do provide a service to us, the general public.  They protect our identity and use it to enable us to obtain credit, etc.  If there is no relationship, why do they want to charge us for viewing the data?

Joe Pitcher - Irrelevant - Wirral 30 October, 2008, 11:39 0 likes

'If there is no relationship, why do they want to charge us for viewing the data?'

They charge us if we choose to create a relationship. The relationship does not exist until you/I choose to ask them for the data.

A Finextra member 01 November, 2008, 21:36 0 likes

I've been following the thread which is quite interesting.

"CRAs should be made to contact - independently - the subject...".

CRAs originally were set up to service credit providers that wanted to check on the credit history and credit worthiness of an individual. Credit providers do not necessarily report new accounts opened for an individual. Not every credit check results into a new account. And in the U.S. for example, during the heady days of subprime mortgages, a debtor's credit history was not even checked as long as he can put 10% of the value of the property.

CRAs were not set up to contact the 'debtor' but indeed, it would seem to be a relatively simple process to enable CRAs to contact the 'debtor'.  Enabling CRAs is not the same as 'making it mandatory' for CRAs. 

But before we even talk about enabling or mandating CRAs, first it should be made mandatory for all credit providers to check with CRAs before an account is opened for an individual. It should also be made mandatory for all credit providers to post any new account with CRAs. Mandating anything in the market, usually implies some kind of regulation.

But the liabilty lies with credit providers, and not with the CRAs. Therefore if a regulating body can mandate a process to all credit providers, it would be just as easy to create an independent system by which a consumer can post a 'switch' to signal if its truly him thats applying for an account. And since the liability lies with the credit providers and because they are or will be mandated and lastly, because the relationship is truly between the credit provider and the consumer (individual); credit providers should, in my opinion, pay for this service each time they need to check this 'switch' status. The consumer should also pay a small fee each time he turns the switch to 'on', free of charge when he turns it 'off.

In essence, the process is relatively simple but in order for this simple process to happen, we first need regulation to mandate all credit providers. My conclusion also is that CRAs are not necessary to make this kind of system work.

A Finextra member 02 November, 2008, 20:53 0 likes

CRA'a are a data repository and refererence vehicle for FSI's and CRA members.  Because the data is related to a person it seems right to me that when the data is updated, the person is notified.  Now, how about using the mobile phone for that notification?  If we have proper authentication in place, wouldn't that solve two issues...one being the current whereabouts of the person and two, the accuracy of the data? Notwithstanding that it is the most efficient method by a long way.