Headline is misleading.
They can opt in to having this reported on their credit report. That doesn’t automatically mean any score will reflect it. Lenders pull which credit reports they want, and they keep what they want from credit reports and calculate their own approach. Just shoving this on the credit reports won’t necessarily mean all credit reports have it accurately, or force them to use the reports that have this information, or even use this information or any particular score. They likely calculate their own.
This is why sometimes you find that the “score” they have when buying a car or house differs from the score you thought you had.
People should be aware their is no single credit score. All scores are made-up and no standard exists. It’s all about the content on the report and how it is factored in.
I’m not saying this isn’t good news, but the headline is very misleading and this step forward should be a lot more forward than it is.
This is a good idea, and hopefully will help people get a leg up. Better credit scores can save you money by opening up lower interest rates.
We started this in Canada earlier this year.
TIL.
Now I gotta talk to my landlord about registering for it.
Thanks for saying something about it. :)
Landlords will be pissed, this makes it easier for them to buy out of the system and reduces rent to purchase ratio.
i love this; i think i’ll move back to california
Meanwhile I have to pay $5 a month to reflect mine
CA landlords can charge their monthly cost or $10, whichever is less.
Now that’s how you make a law. I love how this is built.
The only thing I would change is that the landlord is allowed to ONLY charge their exact cost. But otherwise yeah this is a good idea (having your rental payments show or affect your credit score).
Monthly cost or $10, whichever is less, is better. It means the landlord is incentivized to keep costs down. Even if it costs the landlord $50, they can only charge the tenant $10. If it costs them $5, they can only charge the tenant $5. It’s a ceiling on the cost.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding.
This is a cost to have your rent showing up on the credit report, correct?
How would the landlord have any control over what they charge?
I assume the landlord uses a service to share rent with the credit report agencies. The landlord can shop around for a cheaper service, or use their cousin who charges $50/tenant but gives the landlord a kickback.
I think assumptions in this case is a bad idea.
If the landlord has a realistic way to control the price then that’s one thing but I would want to see how they control that price. Or if they even have any say in it. If the landlord has no say then the landlord should charge exactly their cost.
I somewhat disagree, because landlords have a say by their sheer number and capital. If credit agencies or reporting services want to gouge landlords, that shouldn’t be the tenant’s problem and landlords should come together to negotiate lower prices. I much prefer the built-in tenant protection here of a $10 per month cap.
Same. $4.99/month ooo thanks for the penny.
Abolish the credit score. US lenders could just used income like they do everywhere else in the world. But then i guess they couldn’t discriminate against women, I/POC, and family history.
Credit scores exist because it’s harder to discriminate this way.
This is only for tenants obligated to pay on a lease, not for month to month tenants with a rental agreement but no lease- also it’s for apartment buildings with 16 units minimum.
Why on Earth the minimum unit requirement?
Probably to not burden smaller landlords with excess costs for reporting and infrastructure if I had to guess
