If you have ever been a victim of Internet Identity theft, then you are no doubt aware of measures that may be taken to prevent it from happening again.
For starters, a consumer may ask a credit bureau to post a statement on their profile requesting that potential creditors contact the individual first, before issuing credit automatically by computerized methods online.
Unfortunately, there are a couple of problems with this practise.
When a potential creditor spies the "fraud alert" on a credit report, more-often-than-not, they assume that the agency has posted the warning to alert the company that the person requesting the credit may have engaged in wrongdoing or fraudulent conduct in the past.
Wrong!
On occasion, creditors are unaware that it was the debtor - not the credit bureau - who placed the alert on their credit report to prevent identity theft.
Then, there is the issue of identifying the individual, when such an alert pops up on the computer screen.
A potential creditor may be posed up to five questions - with the specific intent - of determining their true identity.
For instance, one question may ask that the debtor state which address listed on the notice applies to them.
But, here is where problems often arise, as well!
Instead of posting a former address of the applicant (home or business), the credit bureau may list addresses that are tied to their credit accounts.
For example, if a consumer had a car loan with Bank of America, that address may be posted for the applicant to identify.
However, if the credit bureau posts the address for the Bank's headquarters - and not the one for the branch where the account was approved - the consumer may be totally in the dark as to the significance of the entry on their credit report questionnaire.
I laughed yesterday - when a credit manager at Toyota of Santa Monica - made the stupid mistake of assuming that the customer seeking a loan that afternoon must have been an imposter because they were unable to fathom the correct response in a similar scenario.
The mistake was a particularly shocking one to watch down go down when you consider the over-riding factors.
The method for identifying the individual - five questions posed to an applicant, for instance -is used specifically for individuals applying "sight-unseen" on the Internet.
Since the applicant appeared in person at the Toyota lot in sunny Santa Monica - with driver's license and supporting documents in hand - the internet confirmation was redundant (not necessary) in this instant case.
Notwithstanding the obvious, the Credit Manager proceeded to waive the applicant away - and in the process - the car dealership lost an important sale to a reputable individual who just happened to be very well-known member of the community at large.
In these tough economic times, that is a bleeding shame!
Clearly, the staff at Toyota of Santa Monica are not only a posse of losers - but short on brains!
And, how was your day?
http://www.thetattler.biz
No comments:
Post a Comment