Screenshots

But there are claims by loan guarantors whose borrowers whom has not been legally acted on by the bank (meaning the info is still within the bank or CCRIS) receiving CTOS report stating they are not 'credit worthy'.
JW

The info from CTOS is no different from you and me cutting up all the newspaper clippings and compiling them faithfully day after day.

The BEEF I believe, is that they have neither been doing it faithfully (Faulty records etc) nor doing it in good faith. (Forcing people to pay them to fix their own mistakes.)

That good borrowers have to bear higher interest because of bad borrowers strikes true.

When layperson have to go through stringent checks in order to get a loan, the well connected can get them with a phone call, and not even have to face the consequences when they fail to service their loans.

Jeff,
I'm of the same feeling as you when i first notice their bashing against CTOS.
Since its existence is a pure business concern, the answer lied in who will benefit from its down fall?

I was blacklisted for acting as a guarantor for a loan settled way back in 1995.
The banks were quick to act on unpaid dues, but never bothered to clear the aftermath, whether in their records or through CTOS.
So currently, I live by avoiding such hassle as applying for loans.

"2. How does it gather this info?

From public sources. You know all those adverts in the newspapers? It tells you a lot about who's suing whom? Generally borrowers when they default also ignore legal documentse from the banks, so banks have to advertise the service of those docs in the papers (substituted service). CTOS goes through those notices every day to compile their info. When they get notice of a company being wound up, they do a company search with the Companies Commission to check on who the directors are."
---------------------------
Think again writer, does paper advertise u're sueing someone for RM 2,000.? or would u advertise it for RM 2,000.?
---------------------------
"4. What does this mean?

The info from CTOS is no different from you and me cutting up all the newspaper clippings and compiling them faithfully day after day. I don't see what the fuss is about. It also means that people cannot run away from their credit history. Although a lot of this can be explained - eg. failed business or Asian crisis etc, there is much that a borrower can do to mitigate their credit history :

they can take the discharge letter from the bank and show it to CTOS who will update their database.
they can show that they have since maintained a good credit history"
---------------------------
This is what the writer thinks, writer is playing guesses as to how Ctos collects it's data.
Please do some research or think carefully before thinking what u wrote are facts.
Collecting datas from papers is only a very minor part of the systems (even this is not necessary anymore bcos Ctos can collect them from court filings) but writer only know this part.
This info is only partly right, the writer did not mention Ctos' duty to give updated datas or how those info can be updated, probably writer does not know how Ctos collected its data as i mentioned. hence, writer thinks and gives perception that it's ok not to update what they collected.
As a banker who uses ctos, i think writer limited his knowledge to banking sector only, no mention of litigation areas.

I suggest to writer to do more facts finding. What u wrote is highly faulty.

Why cant ANYBODY reading into Jeff's blog??????????

There is a bigger UNDANG at the back of this whole huhhah!

Just imagine you're a cronies of certain parties.

The election is near.

The boss want you to start mobilize & cover the ground works.

You told the boss, no problem but I need the beef, big & fast!

The boss say, no problem we go through the usual channels of fund dispersing.

Half way through the 'fund applications', troubles occur at many fronts.

The biggest one is the credit worthiness of the cronies' up-front masks.

As the credit verifications run into problems as normally the cases with cronies' setups.

Now the boss needs a sacrificed lamb to force the banks/financers into the line.

On come CTOS.

Well done! Kill CTOS to give example to all those assh**es who dont approve the loan applications of the cronies'.

End of story..... or is it the beginning???????????

Don't know who D&B is in the US. The big three credit bureaux are Experian, Transunion and Equifax. By law, each consumer could ask to see a copy of his/her credit report each year free. Records are kept for several years (thought to be seven), so if someone ever defaults on loan payment, it stays on for a long time and this impacts the interest rates when the person seeks credit from FI. The records in these bureaux are typically reported by FI, so that a bad credit person cannot go around fooling another lender.

You are being a CTOS apologist. FYI, banks have to charge RM100 to consumers and this money is being paid to CTOS for credit checking.
Again as someone mentioned before how come you trust a company that does not report its financials to hold your personal info?

CTOS mistakes are:

a) Being immensely profitable without any hotshot or strong crony backing,

b) Not filing their yearly company statements as they should, giving the authorities and easy way to bag them,

c) Misplaying their hand by daring a deputy minister.

Apart from these, everyone is barking up the wrong tree.

For example: What privacy? All are public info published in newspapers. Blacklist? No such thing in CTOS, it's just public records. Unfairness? It's the bank that's unfair that they only take any CTOS info as basis to decline lending to them.

I think the bank are not so concern if you didn't pay up your credit card outstanding for three months. They're are more worried if someone makes use of a company name to borrow money and then don't pay back. Well, he can declare bankrupt, company close down, but hey... he has the money after all! Without CTOS, I think the banks would have bigger losses in coming years. Will this cause instability of our country's economy? Hmm.. guess who would be affected in the end.

I notice some commenter still INSIST CTOS are doing wrong. They keep jumping gun on the wrong entities.

In fact, there is no law in Malaysia stop CTOS from collecting the information, neither it is WRONG for not removing the archival information from the database.

Worst, some commenter insist that CTOS should remove the old records. But on the other hand, most of this people know there is something call "credit record".

Oxymoron! It is the GOVERNMENT that fail you.

First of all, the complaints against Ctos was not updating it's database. Then came lots more from the public, Mostly grievances resulted from the out dated data itself.

JEFF OOI says: Shall we get the Government to ban banks -- who ultimeately decide to approve or reject your loans apps -- to use un-updated data? Right now, the banks seems to be willingly relying on CTOS, as claimed. Once the government make the ban, CTOS's fate will take its own course but bank customers will not be discriminated against! Talking about barking at the wrong tree... yeah.

So, barking up the wrong tree.? Do you condone out dated data.?
And are you aware that for Ctos to update a single data is an expensive process ?
Does it cross ur mind that Ctos are not concern about outdated datas bcos it brings no benifits to them and on the contrary they make more money without the updating cost.

Think about this people. Are they concerned whether its updated or not ? They just provide the data and let the person concerned clear it themselves and no cost involved. After all, they are business people, its not against the law to provide half-bake info, cutting cost to maximise profit is the order of the day. As i said b4, the process of updating a data is an expensive process.
Ask a lawyer how to keep track of a court filing, he will tell you how, and it takes tedious constant checking. and they are selling each data for RM20 or RM30.
Updating cost them and will eat up their profit.

(eg. to keep track of a court case they will have to keep track of the mention date and if hearing is postphoned. They have to keep track of it again. Unless they take a time frame for each case like a yr to check for the outcome. At times some cases can take yrs to be concluded. Lets say they take a yr as the time frame check the outcome of the case to update their data. They can either get a letter from the lawyer concerned or search for the case number for the outcome judgement copy. So, for RM20/RM30 how much left.? What if case drag to more than 7 yrs.? Most cases take more than a yr to be concluded. 4 yrs is norm for litigation cases.

Irony, no one looks at this. Ethically correct? Sure, who cares?

Dear Thisismalaysia!!...oh..

I refer to both your comments on the CTOS. Don’t be just an armchair critic. If you believe Jeff erred in certain areas, point them out and provide WHAT you are aware or has knowledge on the subject. Don’t be an ass to ask Jeff to do more facts finding. Focus on the topics rather than find fault on the subject. We wish to hear what you disagree, RATIONALLY.

i was also surprised about the fuss over CTOS and the attention it was getting.
CTOS is now being charged with problems related to Companies Act. Nothing on their giving out information or the quality of the info, which was what the hue and cry was about. Looks like they are being sacrificed for getting into the way of something.
exactly what, i dont know.
but jeff and some of the comments have given us some possibilities.
i'm glad i'm not CTOS.

Malaysian quote;

Dear
Thisismalaysia!!...oh..

I refer to both your comments on the CTOS. Don’t be just an armchair critic. If you believe Jeff erred in certain areas, point them out and provide WHAT you are aware or has knowledge on the subject. Don’t be an ass to ask Jeff to do more facts finding. Focus on the topics rather than find fault on the subject. We wish to hear what you disagree, RATIONALLY.
---------------------------
My comments was directed at the bank employee.

Check out later posting for details.

And please i take offence from person who call people an ASS.

1. Who wants the pie? If CTOS was to close shop, who is to say the next Jack to open shop will be any straighter?
2. Bank is pushing the blame on CTOS for not approving credit. Common ethic in Malaysia. Always blame it on someone else so that you have less to do and to answer.
3. Who did not get his credit approved to put CTOS in this position...

"My comments was directed at the bank employee.
Check out later posting for details.
And please i take offence from person who call people an ASS. “

My apologies to erroneously refer to Jeff instead of the bank employee. Notwithstanding that, I believe that the bank employee put forward a rational argument for CTOS. However I await your later posting to make any comment.

By the way according to Collins - English Language Dictionary, one of the meanings of ASS is “..1.2 someone who says or do silly things…. “ I cannot understand why you took so much offence as it is not my intention to offend anyone.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ass may refer to:

Look up ass in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.The most common phonological and spelling variation of arse in American English, a word for the anus or for the buttocks[1]
Ass, from Old English assa, ultimately from Latin asinus, is the older word for donkey.
Wild ass may mean the wild donkey, or it may mean its wild relative the onager, also.

Then you don't mind using this on urself.

I've posted an explaination earlier then my last posting but it's still not out yet.

JEFF OOI says: Ass or ass, you guys are wasting everybody's bandwidth. Or is this an attempt to hijack the context of my blog entries?

JEFF OOI says: Shall we get the Government to ban banks -- who ultimeately decide to approve or reject your loans apps -- to use un-updated data? Right now, the banks seems to be willingly relying on CTOS, as claimed. Once the government make the ban, CTOS's fate will take its own course but bank customers will not be discriminated against! Talking about barking at the wrong tree... yeah.

Ctos has been in operation for donkey yrs and people felt discriminated against. Banks used them more on choise, none, if there are 2 Ctos, one updated data and one outdated data. My guess is why pay for outdated data.?

Now that it's revealed that complaints are aplenty about their practice.
Does it not lent weight if everyone tells their part of grouses.? In other word, bark. People's power at work.?
In this case i think the legislator is more than willing to hear more from the public barking on the that tree, after all, they are the one who brought this matter to light.

The barking are not blame game here, just a "getting it done thing". Whoever that has the power to.

Oh please.. Just because the media and the government witch hunt CTOS does not mean that they are barking at the wrong tree. After all, the public started the complaints.

I have no sympathy for a company that makes money out of public's misery. CTOS supposedly provides financial status information, but what the company does is basically makes life harder for those who are already facing an uphill battle and financial difficulties.

Thisismalaysia...

Why you keep going on about CTOS data 'not updated'?

CTOS data *is* updated - it never says it is keeping track if a person or company is back to solvency. All it says is it keep tracks if the person has ever been declared bankrupt, etc. geddit?

For example - I can say in my records that Anwar was sentenced in 1999. Is that 'not updated'? The accusation is nonsensical because the statement is true and updated regardless of what happens later (Anwar being freed).

So why don't CTOS also keep track of when people are no longer oweing or bankrupt? Simply because that is *not* public information and it's not freely available.

Given that CTOS does NOT actually track if a person is solvent or not, why are everyone accusing CTOS of not being updated? It's the banks that are to blame because they are just seeing the fact that CTOS provides, like 'Anwar was sentenced in 1999' to infer erroneously that Anwar is still in jail.

Get back to basics, fellas, and see how the matter was first raised by the Deputy Minister - he claimed that a third of MPs were on the CTOS database. He has got nuts to do with championing the plight of the unsuccessful motor-loan borower, the small businesss owner and the like. It's all about showing power against anyone who dares to maintain unfavourable info about the personalities linked closely with the BN. the Deputy Minister is just afraid that some of his/colleagues stuff will hit the fan, that's all he's concerned about. But how successfully the Deputy Minister has diverted (by accident more than design), public frustration about their own poor credit history coming out to haunt themselves....

Now I venture to say CTOS is the victim. Look at the 85 summonses over Companies Act offences. Of course it's no excuse, other than a failure of CTOS Company Secretary. But it doesn't reflect on CTOS's professional service of providing background information which their clients seek, at arm's length, willing-service provider, willing-service buyer.

As Jeff says, where's the beef against CTOS?

Well perhaps people who are siding with CTOS here too busy reading the English newspaper. The issue of CTOS started from Malay newspaper ie Utusan Malaysia when its readers are complaining about CTOS. Kayveas took note about that and bring the matter to the limelight.
Now FYI too, CTOS will not delete your record for eternety even if you already settled all your loan. It's like having a criminal record instead of just a bad debt. Now even a criminal has a second chance. But if you name already in CTOS, banks would not even give you a loan and financial assistance. Hence you have to resort to ah long, ceti haram.

Here's a view from Bar Council.

Credit Reference Companies Must Be Regulated - Bar Council

KUALA LUMPUR, July 12 (Bernama) -- Credit reference companies like Credit Tip-Off Service (CTOS) Sdn Bhd must be licensed, controlled and regulated, said the Malaysian Bar Council.

Its president Ambiga Sreenevasan Thursday said such a move was necessary in ensuring that such companies assumed liability of inaccurate information provided in their database which could result in losses to individuals.

She said the government should review the Data Protection Bill which was discussed a few years ago where the Bill was proposed to protect private information.

"Without a regulatory framework, there is a pervasive risk of abuse," she said in a statement, which referred to the numerous complaints on information provided by CTOS that had caused injustice, hardship and inconvenience to loan applicants.

"Collection of personal information by an organisation relied on by the banks, brings with it a heavy responsibility to ensure accuracy.

"However, the burden equally lies upon the banks to verify the accuracy of the information and to be transparent with their customers about the information."

Ambiga said the Bar Council, over the years, received numerous complaints against CTOS and the manner in which it worked such as "blacklisting" of loan applicants.

"Most of the complaints were that the data might not be current and the banks relied on the information without further verification and without informing their customers."

She said the Bar Council had highlighted the problem to Bank Negara and had requested it to issue a directive to the banks and financial institutions not to rely on CTOS as a basis to reject loan applications.

"They should disclose the reasons for rejecting the loan applications to the applicants if it is based on information from CTOS."

She said the Bar Council welcomed the recent Cabinet directive requiring banks to obtain the consent of borrowers before acquiring information from companies that supply credit information.

"It is a positive step towards establishing a regulatory framework that would safeguard the interests of customers," she said.

-- BERNAMA

CTOS ought to crash and burn. My colleague is a discharged bankrupt for some loans he stood as guarantor. He has paid up every single cent.

2 weeks ago his home-loan application was rejected because Alliance Bank looked into CTOS. Guess what, information not updated!

What's the beef? I think there should be laws and guidelines to control credit information!

So, bar councill agrees Ctos should be regulated and controlled.

Andrew,
Debate with them if u wan Ctos remains status quo.
Your say now.

As for an ass like MALAYSIAN. Its your say now.

Dear Thisismalaysia !!...oh..

I agree that not only CTOS but any credit reference agency should be regulated. But the issue here is the way CTOS is being crucified not due to its operations of providing credit reference to users but the 85 charges made for its non compliance under the Companies Act. Pls do a search at the CCM and you would be able to see as to how many companies are in non compliance with the filing of accounts. It is not that I agree to CTOS in not complying with the Co Act. This issue here is as “where is the beef” or is there a hidden agenda for killing off CTOS.

You are a BIGGER ASS if you find offence in the word and do not hesitate to using it. Sorry Jeff, not trying to hijack the context of your blog but to express my view that if one is unable to stand the heat he should not be in the kitchen.

Hey MALAYSIAN,

Two wrongs do not make CTOS right. Other companies may be flauting the laws but it is CTOS who is being so arrogant as if they are innocent here. Watching the CEO being interviewed on TV and his open letter certainly describe what a man he is! Don't claim to be a saint especially when you know you are wrong. Plus the business CTOS in has caused many untold miserables to a lot of people (CTOS claims it has 13 million names in the database). You might now affected now but who knows in the future.

In the US, the record only kept for 7 years if I am not mistaken but CTOS kept your record as far as they can. And they are not doing it in good faith.

Yes, CCM sues CTOS for flauting with Companies Act. But you forget to mention that there are a number of individuals suing CTOS. The ex-Petronas guy is one of them, way back since last year - way before the MEDIA bring the issue!

Why is it that people always thinking of sinister agenda behind this CTOS issue?

Dear Dangerous Variable,

It is not the info not updated. It is their POLICY not to delete record. So if you are a bankrupt always a bankrupt.

MALAYSIAN,

I prefer to debate it out with you at MT. Currently there are lots of heading about Ctos there. Look out for myke. I'm not intersted to call people names but u did that but seems like your can't own-up to what u did and cited collins dictioonary, "ONE OF THE MEANINGS". In chinese we call it "Fall to the ground but still wants to grap a fistfull of sand". Just own up. See you there.

p/s
The resaon i prefer to have this there is, personally i find that Jeff is a little bias concerning this matter.

Reasons why i think so are;
He is saying that people are barking at the wrong three. If that is what he things, then tell the people;
1)who they should be barking.?

JEFF OOI says: Go bark at the banking system that approves and rejects loans vis-a-vis BAFIA.
2) Why ?
JEFF OOI says: The supposed material victims -- people who can;t get loans due to their credit worthiness adjudged by the banks and financial institutions -- are subjects of BAFIA, not Companies Commission of Malaysia, under which CTOS had been charged for violation of laws and the jury is still out on thispending the Court's decision.

3) Will it bring results?

JEFF OOI says: This depends on which you bark up correctly. Currently, its has been an assault on reasons and the aggieved parties had been allured to bark up the wrong tree.

4)Is the barking he intended suppose to bring result/changes or for the sake of barking?

JEFF OOI says: Ditto No. ( 3 )

Jeff went on to cite internationally bodies in equation with Ctos, nor has Jeff cited any disanvantages of Ctos and people's grievances.(This equation gives me the impression like our "famous politician" telling the public our toll rates is still the lowest in the world, no indication of per capita income). NO standards of practise ethics given.

JEFF OOI says Stop your assault on reasons. Then you will not be misled to bark up the wrong tree -- at your own grave peril.

No offence Jeff, this is the impression you've given me. Not sure if it's only me, but i think someone did commented that u're a Ctos apologist.

JEFF OOI says: The better argument -- based on reasons and judicial justification -- will win the day.

U set up this site bcos u believe in fairness and Democratic freedom void of any bias element. That will have eternal support from those who believe in it, but once that is tinted..

I only wanted to point out the damages done by Ctos and get the legislator to change whatever needs to, that's all.

JEFF OOI says: Stop your assault on reasons, and your common sense will come back.

What about you all?

Some people here just don't understand reason and logic.

Let me ask you: If you apply for a job, most companies ask you in their Application Form 'Have you ever been convicted in the court of law?'

If you have been convicted of drink driving and freed, do you have to right to put 'No' there simply because it is the most updated? No! The fact is that you have been convicted before.

CTOS provide this information - instead the answer to the question 'have you ever been bankrupt?'. It never claims to provide the info for 'are you still a bankrupt now?'

If your employee jumps to the conclusion that they don't want to hire you because of your past conviction without seeking your explanation or checking if you are reformed, then it's your employee's unreasonableness and his fault. It is also your employee's perogative.

Similarly, if the bank feels they don't want to loan to you just because you have a CTOS record, then go blame the banks for being unreasonable, instead of targetting CTOS with nonsensical and populist arguments that appeal to emotions instead of arguments that hold up to reason and logic.

I don't think much of CTOS's bosses arrogance and the way they conducted themselves (badly!) - but I am pissed off that they are treated in such a skewed and unreasonable manner for something that is not their fault.

Furthermore, CTOS is not breaking a law by not erasing the record simply because there is no law which says it must be erased (as far as i know). If you are concerned, lobby your government to legislate mandatory erasure of such info after X no of years (even if collected from public sources). Secondly, the fact that you are no longer bankrupt anymore is not public information, so the legislators or bank negara have to find a way to provide the credit services with this info if the legislators want to force them to also 'carry the latest status'.

Kofi Annan was here earlier and he spoke about how the rule of law should be applied in a consistent and fair manner, and I hope to see it happening here.

I am lay man .i stood guarantor for my brother in law i was second guarantor.

the agreement was with a finance company for a housing project. The project failed due to many factors.the bank & housing developer said no need to pay (until the project is completed )the bridging interest

the finance bank sued for the money. the principal felt in law the finance company had no right to sue.

what ctos did was pick our names even before the court could hear the case .when the case came for hearing the court throw out the banks claim . hence the principal was not at fault as he proved in court that the bank's hands was not clean.
my question is because of ctos i a gurantor could not open a cuurent account nor take a loan . Affin bank & bank of commerce and many others declined to provide the loans.
it was strange that Ctos could play a big part in saying i was not a credit worthy. had the bank won i would have wrote out a cek $170,000. why then was my name on ctos list.
good job done by govt to protect innocent people like me. cheers to kayeas and the lot
if i had the free money i woild like to sue ctos now

July 14, 2007 19:53 PM

Khairy Suggests Winding Up CTOS

REMBAU, July 14 (Bernama) -- Deputy Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin said today he hoped that the government would just wind up Credit Tip-Off Service Sdn Bhd (CTOS).

He said the government should find a solution through Bank Negara because the service of selling credit data could be exploited by the private sector in the name of profit.

"Otherwise, many people will be victimised, especially Malays who may have settled their debts but get penalised by the information provided by CTOS," he told reporters after the opening of the Rembau Umno Youth delegates meeting here.

The meeting was opened by Negeri Sembilan Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan, who is also the state Umno liaison chief.

Khairy said he noticed that most of the people on the CTOS blacklist were Malays.

He also said that CTOS had abused all procedures and regulations and hoped that the system could be amended to ensure transparency and fairness.

The service of selling information, like what CTOS does, should be carried out by the government, he said.

-- BERNAMA

P/s: I support Khairy suggestion on this issue.

Referring to “Khairy Suggests Winding Up CTOS”, Khairy is putting across his view on a political platform. If he is genuine to the fact that CTOS is detrimental to the general public then don’t just blame CTOS just because it affects Malays only. Don’t treat this as a racial issue. Take it as a national cause that it is adverse all Malaysians.

I still do not see what CTOS has done wrong other than non compliance with the Companies Act. This definitely does not warrant a serious act of winding up a company. Let the free market dictates whether it requires the services of CTOS. It is due to the need of such services that CTOS exists and survives. The Government should not just wind up a company because politicians complain about them. Institutes laws, regulations and punishments, and so long as companies act within the ambit of the law, they should be allowed to exist and operate.