I am siding with Credit Tip-Off Service.

Kayveas is damm cocky, and najib telling CTOS to update their information by breaking the laws by approaching banks. both arent very intelligent. High IQ Low EQ

no matter how i read, kayveas is indeed defamed CTOS, and let see how our "LAWS" handled defamation. i do think everyone is equal in front of law, so do u, Kayveas

1. Kayveas states CTOS is blacklisting people, this is already a defamation, all they did is provide information, the final decision is bank and companies
2.then Kayveas told the reporters bout CTOS not submitting the financials to make CTOS look like a bad guy. hey, its a change of topic, who cares bout their financials, i dont even care if CTOS bankrupt, we just need informations.
3. then Kayveas lodge a police report after getting a legal letter. dude , if u guys ever read a legal letter, it wasnt suppose to be a threat. a legal letter is not a threat in the eyes of law.

Note: i am in no way any related with CTOS and i do think the company is suspicious itself, but it wasnt as bad as one of our minister defames peoples and get off with it.

Verdict: i think cTOS should declared bankrupt and be liquidated and Kayveas be given warning for defamation

I've heard that no one or organization is allowed to keep other people's financial records for a certain number of years or something. It prevents people who have failed once in their life to get back up, despite settling all their debts. In short, its sort of like discrimination.

In this defamation context however, I do think CTOS is not responsible for blacklisting, they merely provide the information. This is why the above rule is in place, not to allow companies to provide such information so others can use it to blacklist.

Unless the information is illegitimate, against national interest or personal (non-public domain) record I think it's OK!

What's the big deal... voting for dungu's this is what you get...

CTOS don't keep financial records.

It's just publicly available notices. Even the star has it everyday.

So how can it be an obstacle to anyone in anyway?

If banks make the decision to deny financial aid to someone, is it right to blame CTOS?

If its discrimination, then the Star ought to be banned too for highlighting the notices.

well said 'happy4ever'.

It looks like if there is any problem, it's the financial institutions that has been misusing the CTOS information.

CTOS's no angel but I don't like the good for nothing Kayveas sticking his nose into these irrelevant issues.

CTOS needs to go period. Do they have the authority to keep your information. Did you give them the permission to store your information? What they are doing is invasion of privacy. On what basis that they are obtaining your information. Are they selling your information without informing you. This can only be the beginning of what CTOS is capable of doing. One day, without notice your every bank transaction or credit card transaction can be recorded by them. Where you eat...what are your spending habits.... You want that to happen to you? If identity theft happens, you are the victim and by then what is your say on this.

as mention by previous post in this thread CTOS only store the public available info like bankrupt notice and court ruling

you credit history are really store in the CCRIS database maintain by bank negara, you can check you credit report by fill in a form

http://creditbureau.bnm.gov.my/index.php?ch=7&pg=12&ac=18

they have a guide on how to read the report


http://creditbureau.bnm.gov.my/view.php?id...%BB%D8%B8%89%8D

CTOS is providing info based on data collected from the newspaper. The ads in the newspaper only serve as a medium of notice for individuals whom may have a legal case brought against him. This information are now being used as a form of historic events for a person\'s credibility to determine whether he is a good creditor or not. What a farce..no agency has any right to use public information and sell it to any interested parties without due diligence being conducted. To say that it is bounded by the Banking Act which deters them from obtaining settlement information means they should not even be collecting these information in the first place knowing that theres no avenue for them to update informaation which has already been settled. At the end of the day, the public at their own initiative have to inform CTOS for debts which has been settled or dischargement of their bankrupcy and that for a sum as well. Bank Negara already provides information pertaining to anyone\'s credibility, why should Private Banks rely on other forms of information other than those provided by the Government which are at least recent. Put a stop to CTOS which profits from information which are published free by the insolvency department. By providing dated and inaccurate information which are used by Finacial Institution this only serve to wreck the country's economy. If they cant be regulated than they shouldnt be in business. Banks who uses them to determine ones credibility should be penalised for negligence. Who is more foolish the fool or the fool who follows him. Banks should wake up from its kiasuism. All loans have risk, doesnt means that the persom with no CTOS listing has less risk than one who is listed. Banks says CTOS listing does not affects decision making but with listing it does prejudice decision making. Which is worse? Government need to act fast before everybody succumbs to this CTOS dilemma.

You have all the facts right but you're forgetting that no one is going to go through a years paper or even 2 years of paper records to find whether or not a person had been sued or is there a legal noticed served against an individual.
Again another thing you forgot is CCRIS from BNM only records data which is being submitted by FIs (Financial Institution, i.e. banks and finance companies). Thus one wouldn't know that a particular individual or a particular company is being pursued by his/it's vendor for defaults in payment.
Even CTOS had put up a disclaimer before anyone subscript to it's service saying that
the records might not be up to date and urged ppl using it only as a reference. Thus most FI used CTOS as a reference and further check if a customer appealed or it's a large case. Some FI has it's own criteria on CTOS whereby I've known some which disregard records that are more than 5 years old.

And why is everyone afraid if they've done nothing wrong? That I seriously don't understand!
Look at one of the rubbish post in The Star:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=...16302&sec=focus


and my reply in this topic:
http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/480209/+60

The worse is people like you.

If I collect all old newspaper and scans them and stores them. Storage space needs money.

Then someday you need to refer to some past articles, you come to me. Shall I give you free service of looking up your queries (spend time and effort) or shall i charge you?

In fact, you should blame the Star for publishing such notices. Because if the said people have settled their debts, it should be shown in the Star too saying these people are CLEAN and have settled all debts. Do you find it in the papers? Or do you only see cases of summons, bankruptcy etc notices?

Think about it.

oh...i Never saw the Jabatan Insolvensi part until bolded...
Insolvensi search cost a fee of RM10 per check.
Also Jabatan Insolvensi would only list individual who's a bankrupt or companies which are liquidated.

The only problem with CTOS is they are providing information only half the story. And the other problem, is that people only read half the story and make judgement out of it. For FI, to do that, whether it's intentional or convenient is called Negligence..therefore the motion now is for CTOS to rectify its database to include recent data. CTOS has a duty of care to the public to provide accurate information to whoever who uses it. It is insufficient for them just to disclaim themselves by suggesting that the reader should perform their own due diligence to verify or obtain latest information themselves. If the people who pays for this service need to do additional search then CTOS is redundant. But having said that, because CTOS is conveniently available..the FI conveniently uses positive CTOS listing as pre-judgement thus prejudice that particular person. Do you think that with over 100's loan or credit card application a day you are required to call them for justification. Doin searches and searches just to approved a loan..you must be joking. So the most convenient way is to filter applicants away who is CTOS positive. Therefore, the lead information provided by CTOS does not even allows you to get past the first stage. Think about it. Its like being relegated without going for the playoff in football terms. if you are one of the victims who keeps getting denied for a loan because you're CTOS positive but already paid your dues the you will probably understand the misery the people are having because the information provided by CTOS IS OUT OF DATE therefore they either rectify or declassify.

1. CTOS just collects all publically available records.

2. All records is pertaining to those who is being sued, eg MARA, Legal Suits, Auction...

3. Hence, there is no recourse for Government to act unless Government outlaw it.

4. BTW why such fear when you pay your dues.

5. Besides there is more than 1 Company doing the job. Refer to The Edge, there is another Company doing just the same and not getting the flank. Ever wonder why?

it is not about fear ..this is public records which are sold and only serves to mislead because it is incomplete. Even though you have paid your dues the records does not reflect it. And some institution are using this incomplete data to pass verdict. So lets say if your are in a law of court and the judge finds you guilty with only half the evidence presented, how would you feel, dont you feel you have not been given a fair trial. Its the same with CTOS for only being partial in its reporting. Again, DUTY OF CARE is not being exercised when dealing with public information which is highly sensitive as information like this needs to be highly regulated. Only in this country that this sort of data collation is allowed due to our non existence Data Protection Act. And item No 5 in your statement..does'nt mean that there is more than one company doing it is right..as the saying goes ..two wrong doesnt make a right..everybody seems to be missing the point ...that the information reflected by CTOS is incomplete..it should not even be allowed to be on display let alone on sale, it is inconceivable how this will affect the people as information as highly sensitive as this is being misused over and over again. We only call for proper and regulated reporting just like journalism. We do not want something like CTOS to bring the whole system of data protection down and this include everyone not just the people listed by CTOS.

half story, or full story doesnt matter.

when ur potential client showed up in the newspapers, then its a great idea to avoid doing business with them. beside, we all know what type of people showed up in the newspaper's hall of shame

and i do suggest the peoples who havent settle their ptptn loan after a long due, should be going into CTOS....

even if the person have settled their loan, it doesnt matter. and it should still be keep in ctos database. reason: some people needs their names to be published on the papers so they would pay up. borrowing money is far easier than paying up.

This post has been edited by john123x: Jul 5 2007, 11:29 PM

eric84cool:read up...I think I've explained...

dvng, might as well ban the papers for publishing those legal notice. or even better; stop the court from sticking all those legal notice outside the court.
So how do you suggest CTOS buck up?
If you were the head of the company how would you do?
Check on 100's of names published every month through out the country and go to court and enquire one by one? somemore, how many more historical records they have to go through?
So you shouldn't put the blame on CTOS, but by blaming the FIs, yes you're correct. CTOS is just a service provider.
For your example, you can always appeal to the banks; so if the bank doesn't listen you can blame the bank, not CTOS!

For eg, I read a paper one day and saw the published notice on so and so become bankrupt. One day, he came to borrow money from me; It's just normal for me to reject. And since that so and so wants the money; so and so must prove it to me instead of me doing it.

FIs deal with thousands of applications per day.....what do you expect? send runner to every court in the country just to see whether or not the said applicants got any legal case previously and presently?!... You seem to think only one side but not seen the other side of how things work.

Once you're the boss of a company that deals with lending business you'll know. Another reason why banks reject because history shows that the said applicant had a certain case against him because he didn't pay or refuse to pay. It's not to discriminate; but with certain histories reflected badly against a said applicants, doesn't the bank or anyone has the doubt of lending out?

You know a guy who didn't pay someone for many years than later he told you that he paid off recently and shows your prove. Would you rationally lend him money?!...for me I wouldn't. I would assume that you're only covering your debts with another debts. It's only logical to think that way.

I think enough explanation from my post here. Again regarding collecting of PUBLISHED PUBLIC information; what's wrong of charging other for it if I'm the one going through all the troubles help collecting and compilling those information and buy servers and warehouse to store the information?!

They would have gone through all the legal procedures to get the company set up. So ever wonder why only now ppl are complaining? Doesn't it seems ilke a plot or scandal which started from someone in the ministry which he himself is listed in CTOS and he just wants to cover up his own ass?!

But to all here.. Few things to ponder for your future:

One:
If you are getting a divorce from your spouse and you don't want your ex-spouse to know about your credit, are you to blame yourself or blame CTOS if they sell all your credit information to your ex-spouse for merely RM 15.00.

Two:
You got a business competitor and both of you are having serious competition over a deal. But you have problems with your credits and you are on CTOS list for past poor credit management.

You needed this deal to waver through for your business to prove that you no longer have poor credit management. But your competitor got hold off these information and use it against you and your business from CTOS for RM 10.00.

The potential client thinks that you are for no good and you have no integrity due to your information is listed in CTOS.

Are you going to say all those information is old information or you going to close the door when the barn door is already open with the horses all out?


To me, is don't glorified CTOS as though they are always correct cause they aren't. Those two scenarios above, I seen incidents happened to my friends and it is not nice..