[The American Lion]

Should your life be enslaved around your credit score? I don't believe your credit score should control what job you should get, if you get a apartment, and getting car insurance. I have a perfect driving record, but I have to high price for insurance because they based it off my credit score. This is simply laziness on the insurance company's part.

I believe the US government should regulate the credit score industry.

- The government should ban those commercials and company practices of offering free credit scores, but in reality you have to pay for a monthly service to get your score.
- Your credit score should not be used to get insurance.
- Your credit score should not be a basis of getting a non-government job.
- Your credit score should not be a basis to approve or deny on getting an apartment or an house to rent.

[hannigaholic]

- The government should ban those commercials and company practices of offering free credit scores, but in reality you have to pay for a monthly service to get your score.
- Your credit score should not be used to get insurance.
- Your credit score should not be a basis of getting a non-government job.
- Your credit score should not be a basis to approve or deny on getting an apartment or an house to rent.

1) Agree - that's like fraud, or at least misrepresentation
2) Agree - credit has nothing to do with how much a risk you are
3) Agree - you have no job and your credit score goes down, so you then can't get a job? Is that really how it works?
4) Absolutely disagree - Your creditworthiness has everything to do with you being able to make regular payments on your house or apartment. It makes perfect sense for credit score to be at least a major factor in approving you for this.

[The American Lion]

4) Absolutely disagree - Your creditworthiness has everything to do with you being able to make regular payments on your house or apartment. It makes perfect sense for credit score to be at least a major factor in approving you for this.

In my county, apartments are hard to find due to the small living space that Skagit county has. I should be pushed into homelessness due to a bad credit score.

[DanDaMan]

- Your credit score should not be used to get insurance.

You just have to go to the second/third tier providers and pay more. Which, would be the same price from the first tier provider.

- Your credit score should not be a basis of getting a non-government job.

Well, the government does have a responsibility to weed out the losers.

- Your credit score should not be a basis to approve or deny on getting an apartment or an house to rent.

see #2.

[Potemkin]

In my county, apartments are hard to find due to the small living space that Skagit county has. I should be pushed into homelessness due to a bad credit score.

It's the free market at work, baby. Gotta love capitalism.

[DanDaMan]

It's the free market at work, baby. Gotta love capitalism.

This is true.
Imagine how much higher our insurance would be if the government forced companies to take on higher risk people!
At least this way everyone gets the insurance at the price their lifestyle dictates.

[The American Lion]

Oh yes DaDaMan, people who have great credit but have horrible driving record can have a better rate than me is really fair.

[DanDaMan]

Oh yes DaDaMan, people who have great credit but have horrible driving record can have a better rate than me is really fair.

From a business standpoint I would say I have no problem insuring a lousy driver that knows he's lousy and will in good faith always pay his higher than normal rate on time.
Up to some point of risk... he's a cash cow that always pays on time. That's money in the bank.

[Wolfman]

Your credit score should not be a basis to approve or deny on getting an apartment or an house to rent.

Well, a person with a shit credit score is more likely to default on the loan. Altering it based off of the condition you left the house/apartment in would make it so a person with a bad score who leaves houses/apartments in good condition can still get a house. Or of course higher loan rates, or a deposit.

[Todd D.]

The government should ban those commercials and company practices of offering free credit scores, but in reality you have to pay for a monthly service to get your score.

Already done. FreeCreditReport.com, for example, now has to put the disclaimer "requires enrollment in Triple Advantage" to their commercials. This doesn't even strike me as regulation of the credit industry so much as preventing false advertisements.

Your credit score should not be used to get insurance.

Nonsense. Your credit score reflects your ability to commit to regular payments over a yearly (or whatever the term is) time period. How else would you gauge the likelihood of a customer to pay their installments on time?

Your credit score should not be a basis of getting a non-government job.

I'm not entirely sure that they use this as a basis currently.

Your credit score should not be a basis to approve or deny on getting an apartment or an house to rent.

Similar to insurance, your lease is a commitment to make regular payments over the course of a given time period. Your credit score reflects your ability to make those payments. How else would you propose landlords determine who will pay their rent on time?

people who have great credit but have horrible driving record can have a better rate than me is really fair.

I would be very surprised if credit scores were given more credibility than driving records in personal insurance policies. It's never been that way in the literally tens of thousands of insurance policies that I've dealt with over the past 5 years.

[Wolfman]

Nonsense. Your credit score reflects your ability to commit to regular payments over a yearly (or whatever the term is) time period. How else would you gauge the likelihood of a customer to pay their installments on time?

My insurance payments are do the 15th of every month. If I don't pay by the 20th, they send me a notice. If I don't pay by the 25th, they double the cost and call me. If they do not reach me, they cut my insurance. My what wonderful logic some companies are able to use. Oh, wait, I have government insurance.

I would be very surprised if credit scores were given more credibility than driving records in personal insurance policies. It's never been that way in the literally tens of thousands of insurance policies that I've dealt with over the past 5 years.

My mom rented an apartment to a woman who had a credit score of like 275 (or something like it) who had a great driving record. She ended up getting my mom to cosign on her auto insurance because otherwise they wouldn't give her insurance at all (and she was trying to get liability from the worst company in the area)

[DanDaMan]

My insurance payments are do the 15th of every month. If I don't pay by the 20th, they send me a notice. If I don't pay by the 25th, they double the cost and call me. If they do not reach me, they cut my insurance. My what wonderful logic some companies are able to use.

Let me guess... If you total your car on the 23rd and make the payment on the 24th you expect the insurance company to roll over and replace your car?

[Wolfman]

Actually, that is exactly how my insurance works.

[Todd D.]

My insurance payments are do the 15th of every month. If I don't pay by the 20th, they send me a notice. If I don't pay by the 25th, they double the cost and call me. If they do not reach me, they cut my insurance. My what wonderful logic some companies are able to use.

That sounds pretty much how my cable, internet, water, and electric bills act as well. Pay by X date, pay a penalty if I don't pay by Y date, cut my service off if I don't pay by Z date. Are you suggesting that this is illogical or am I misreading you?

My mom rented an apartment to a woman who had a credit score of like 275 (or something like it) who had a great driving record. She ended up getting my mom to cosign on her auto insurance because otherwise they wouldn't give her insurance at all (and she was trying to get liability from the worst company in the area)

It makes sense you think about it this way: You could grossly oversimplify insurance by saying that it essentially amounts to a conditional line of credit without obligation to repay. In the case of a covered cause of loss, they pay, in exchange for the premiums that you pay to them. With personal auto liability, that line of credit ranges anywhere from $50,000 to $500,000 (not to mention any Umbrella coverage you get above that). Let's say you have terrible credit. You secure an insurance policy on June 1st, and on June 19th, before your second payment is due, you have a terrible car accident. Then you decide not to pay the rest of your premiums. They're still on the hook for your cause of loss. So then, is it really that unfair to suggest that the ability / intent to fulfill your obligations plays a part in the decision whether or not to extend that line of credit?

Secondly, it should be noted that you are talking about refusing to offer coverage altogether. TAL said that his premiums were higher than a comparable client that was an unsafe driver with good credit. I would doubt that, since any auto underwriter on the planet is going to look at loss runs when determining premium base more than a credit score. With a poor credit score, the decision becomes whether or not to offer them an installment plan (they'll outright ignore your credit score if you offer to pay them in full, for example) or, as you note, to simply decline to offer coverage altogether.

Let me guess... If you total your car on the 23rd and make the payment on the 24th you expect the insurance company to roll over and replace your car?

Um....either I'm misunderstanding you, or you don't understand how insurance works. That's precisely what someone with auto coverage should expect.

[Wolfman]

am I misreading you

Yes, like you pretty much always do. That's the way they do it, so their isn't any reason for them to care about credit scores since they can cut services if you don't pay.

[Todd D.]

That's the way they do it, so their isn't any reason for them to care about credit scores since they can cut services if you don't pay.

Except as noted, they are on the hook for the period between the time when you policy goes in force to the time that it is canceled for non-payment of premium (between 30 and 60 days depending on the company and the state regulations). In that time period, they are potentially liable for a significant loss. Seems to me that weeding out those who are less likely to pay protects those reserves for those that are more willing to pay.

[Wolfman]

My contract actually says that if I'm day late they don't have to fork over any cash.

[Todd D.]

I don't know what kind of auto policy you have, but that most certainly is illegal in the 12 states that I've been doing business with in the last 5 years (including Nebraska). Until the policy is actually canceled they are liable for any and all losses regardless of whether the payment is in past-due status.

If your insurance company denied a claim based on that, I would suggest an attorney (though the fact that yours is Government-run could possibly make the rules a little different).

[Wolfman]

Government-run

That's actually why they can do that (apparently).

[DanDaMan]

I don't know what kind of auto policy you have, but that most certainly is illegal in the 12 states that I've been doing business with in the last 5 years (including Nebraska). Until the policy is actually canceled they are liable for any and all losses regardless of whether the payment is in past-due status.

I believe Todd is correct. Still, the high late fee is a deterrent to stop people from manipulating the payment plan. And I suspect that law just makes our (safe and prompt payers) insurance higher because the insurance company is forced to take on the higher risk drivers.