How overpaying for credit data impacts your entire credit lifecycle

Most lenders think of credit bureau costs as a procurement issue, something to review at renewal. But in reality, overpaying for credit data has a knock-on effect across the entire credit lifecycle.

It drives up the cost of every loan application, slows down approvals, and limits the flexibility to make competitive lending decisions. In collections, excessive bureau costs can mean outdated financial insights and lower recovery rates. And when affordability assessments are restricted by high data costs, it becomes harder to make sustainable, fair lending decisions without increasing risk.

The good news? These costs aren’t fixed. Lenders who benchmark their bureau pricing are identifying hidden inefficiencies, renegotiating mid-contract, and cutting costs by 25-50%—without reducing data quality.

In this blog, we’ll break down how overpaying for credit data impacts every stage of lending—and what you can do about it.

Underwriting inefficiencies: How overpaying for credit data delays approvals and adds cost per application

Speed and accuracy are crucial in lending. The faster you can assess risk accurately, the better the customer experience and the lower the cost per loan application. But if you’re overpaying for credit bureau data, it’s likely affecting both your margins and your approval process.

Higher bureau costs = Higher per-application costs

Every credit decision carries a data cost—but not all lenders are paying the same rate. Some are locked into outdated pricing models, paying significantly more per search than competitors with the same service footprint.

And when you’re processing thousands (or millions) of applications per year, these costs add up fast.

We’ve seen cases where:

• Lenders were paying double for identical search volumes compared to their competitors.

• Procurement teams assumed their pricing was market standard, when in reality, it was 30-40% above the norm.

• High bureau costs forced lenders to limit the number of affordability checks they ran per application, increasing risk exposure.

Unnecessary data pulls are slowing down approvals

Overpaying isn’t always about price—it’s often a symptom of inefficiency. Some firms are running excessive or duplicate searches without realising.

• Paying for unnecessary add-ons: Features bundled into contracts (such as extra risk indicators or monitoring services) might not be adding value to credit decisions.

• Lack of pricing flexibility: If a lender’s contract doesn’t allow them to scale search volumes up or down, they could be paying for data they don’t need.

How lenders are fixing this

✅ Benchmarking bureau pricing: The most successful lenders don’t guess what a fair price looks like; they compare their rates to the market and negotiate accordingly.
✅ Optimising credit search processes: Cutting unnecessary data pulls reduces cost, improves approval speed, and streamlines underwriting workflows.
✅ Reworking bureau contracts for flexibility – Some lenders are now negotiating tiered pricing models to ensure they only pay for the data they actually need.

Next, we’ll look at how these hidden inefficiencies affect more than underwriting.

Collections & recoveries: Why bureau benchmarking improves debt recovery rates and customer re-engagement

Recovering debt efficiently isn’t just about strategy—it’s about data quality and cost. If collections teams are paying too much for outdated, inaccurate, or low-value bureau data, they’re already at a disadvantage.

Outdated data = Missed recovery opportunities

When lenders overpay for credit data, they often assume they’re getting the best insights available. In reality, many collections teams are working with incomplete or outdated financial data, reducing their ability to contact customers at the right time.

Here’s what we’re seeing:

• Some firms are paying premium bureau rates for tracing data with low match rates, leading to wasted resources and reduced collections success.

• Overpriced data costs force lenders to limit how often they refresh financial information, meaning they miss critical changes in a customer’s financial status.

• Collections teams relying on static, infrequent affordability assessments risk pursuing the wrong customers—or failing to offer realistic repayment plans.

High bureau costs = Less flexibility in collections strategy

When bureau costs are too high, lenders are forced to cut back on how often they access key data. This leads to:
🚩 Fewer updated affordability checks, meaning teams can’t accurately assess a borrower’s ability to repay.
🚩 Lower right-party contact (RPC) rates, making it harder to re-engage customers in financial distress.
🚩 Reduced access to alternative data sources, which can provide a more holistic view of a customer’s financial position.

One lender we worked with was spending £500,000 per year on bureau-led tracing data that wasn’t delivering results. After benchmarking their contract, they switched providers and improved their right-party contact rates by 35%—without increasing costs.

How lenders are fixing this

✅ Comparing bureau performance vs. cost: Not all credit bureaux provide the same depth or accuracy of collections data. Lenders who benchmark find where they’re overpaying for underperforming data.
✅ Exploring alternative data sources: Some lenders are supplementing bureau data with Open Banking insights, utility payment data, or specialist tracing tools—often at a lower cost.
✅ Benchmarking tracing and financial distress indicators: Ensuring lenders are paying the right price for the right insights—rather than defaulting to high-cost bureau data that doesn’t deliver results.

Next, we’ll look at why reducing bureau costs isn’t just about savings—it’s about making lending more sustainable, fair, and competitive.

Sustainability in lending: Why lower bureau costs lead to fairer, more inclusive credit decisions

Affordability assessments are under pressure. Rising credit bureau costs don’t just affect lenders—they shape who gets approved for credit and on what terms. If lenders are overpaying for credit data, it creates a knock-on effect that can make lending less sustainable, less flexible, and less inclusive.

High bureau costs = Higher costs for borrowers

When lenders absorb rising credit bureau costs, those expenses don’t just disappear—they often get passed on to customers through:

• Higher interest rates and fees to maintain profitability.

• Stricter lending criteria, making it harder for near-prime or thin-file customers to qualify.

• Reduced investment in affordability analytics, leading to a one-size-fits-all approach to risk.

We’ve seen lenders forced to limit affordability checks because of high bureau costs—meaning they turn away potential borrowers unnecessarily or increase risk exposure by not checking affordability thoroughly.

More expensive data = Less flexibility in credit decisioning

🚩 Lenders may restrict affordability assessments if bureau costs are too high, leading to weaker risk profiling and missed lending opportunities.
🚩 Some firms avoid multi-bureau checks due to pricing concerns, even when a second opinion could provide better decisioning.
🚩 Overpaying for static bureau data limits innovation—lenders have less room to invest in alternative data models, Open Banking insights, or AI-driven affordability assessments.

How lenders are fixing this

✅ Reducing bureau costs = more flexibility in fair lending strategies. Lower bureau costs allow lenders to approve more customers responsibly without raising rates.
✅ Leveraging alternative affordability data. Some firms are supplementing or replacing high-cost CRA reports with Open Banking, employment, or utility payment data.
✅ Using benchmarking insights to secure better pricing. Many lenders renegotiating their bureau contracts are finding they can lower costs without compromising data quality—leading to a more sustainable lending model.

Lenders who act now aren’t just improving profitability—they’re making lending more accessible, responsible, and competitive.