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.

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.

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.

Adsolutely true. During a construction tender exercise years ago, two contractors was competing seriously against each. One fine day, one of them came to see me with a CTOS list of his competitor showing all the legal cases he has having with his supplier. All this happened during the 97 crisis when almost everyone was having financial squezze. The thing is, both of these two company are really expert in their own field and it is difficult to choose any of the other one. The chap who showed me his competitor CTOS listing was actually the one with a higher tender value and he was trying to discredit his competitor with his so called bad records and hoping the tender will go to him even though his cost his higher so he can profit more. Poor credit management doesnt means somebody or someone is poor in his job which he does well. Therefore, information like this is highly detrimental when use with prejudice. And suprisingly, people are now using CTOS to frightened you e.g pay up or i will see you in CTOS. Why is CTOS being so influential now? The service of CTOS has been grossly misused and mistreated. Its about time that CTOS be closed indefinitely.

This post has been edited by dvng: Jul 6 2007, 12:54 PM

not so simple..if you collect public info for yourself it is ok..if you are collecting public info and sellin it without first making sure it is accurate, recent and verified you will end up being sue for slander and violating data protection act. That's where CTOS ended up. So make sure what you are sellin is legitimate and accurate. No disclaimer is going to get you out of the rut. Information is a powerful tool, it can be used for good or against somebody. If the information is flawed, then you need to be careful of what you are sellin. Just like sellin drugs withot MMA approval.

Item 4...Beats me..the FI's were probably just covering their ass..by saying that they dont rely on CTOS..it was CTOS info that prejudiced their decision..so they conveniently deflect the problem to CTOS..so rather than doing their own investigation which could be exceedingly time consuming..the officer's in the FI's will just reject your application as long as it's listing is CTOS positive..if CTOS still exist..then the chances of people abusing the 'lead information' will still persist. Ultimately, the way I look it..CTOS may have to be closed..until such act and regulations be put in place..the concept of providing lead information at the moment may be put on hold..I dont think even if CTOS doesnt exist there will a dearth of approval of loans, the officers in the FI"s will probably need to be more diligent in its decision making...