What if the rates you’re paying for bureau data aren’t just high, but inaccurate?
Over the past five years, many credit bureaux have upgraded their billing systems. But these upgrades have inadvertently revealed a deeper issue: long-standing
billing errors that often go unnoticed, particularly within complex tiered pricing agreements.
In many cases, organisations are being overcharged without realising it. These errors are typically buried within dense itemised usage reports, obscured
by difficult-to-interpret billing logic. Additional factors, like inconsistently applied RPI increases and billing systems that don’t align with contract terms, only exacerbate the issue.
The result? Companies are unknowingly spending far more than necessary and in some instances, for years on end.
Why are problems emerging now?
New billing platforms were supposed to deliver greater accuracy. Instead, they’ve exposed inconsistencies, especially for clients with intricate pricing
structures.
For large-scale users, contracts can be highly detailed and unique, while the management information (MI) supplied by bureaux is often opaque or incomplete.
As a result, discrepancies in billing may go undetected for months or even years (sometimes dating back to the original master service agreement).
It’s not necessarily that something recently went wrong. Instead, the changes have made it harder to track what should be charged and when, and fewer internal
stakeholders are familiar with the underlying terms.
Common bureau billing issues being uncovered
Some recurring problems include:
-
Tiered pricing not correctly applied: When usage thresholds are exceeded, lower rates should be triggered. In practice, these discounts
are often missed or inconsistently applied. -
Variable charges for identical searches: The same request may be charged at multiple rates within the same billing cycle.
-
Premature overage charges: Additional fees applied despite remaining within agreed volume limits.
-
Duplicated or unexplained charges: Multiple charges for the same data or vague line items with no supporting detail.
Individually, these discrepancies may seem trivial. But across high-volume contracts, they can accumulate into six- or even seven-figure overpayments.
Why these errors go unnoticed
Bureau billing can create a false sense of assurance. Invoices are often long and technical, with layered pricing that requires historical context to interpret
correctly. Unless someone is actively checking billing line by line, with full knowledge of the original agreement, these mistakes rarely come to light.
Further complicating matters is staff turnover. The teams currently managing bureau relationships may not have been involved in the initial negotiations,
leaving them with a limited understanding of the intended pricing structure.
In short, unless you’re specifically searching for errors and know what to look for, it’s unlikely you’ll find them.
Should firms review their bureau billing?
Yes, particularly if contracts are multi-year, tiered, or have rolled over without recent scrutiny. Errors can persist for years without raising red flags
internally. And in many cases, the only way to detect them is with a detailed review that compares billed usage against contractual commitments and known billing logic.
For most organisations, the challenge isn’t intent but capacity. These issues are often too technical and time-consuming for in-house teams to prioritise.
But the potential returns, in avoided overcharges or retrospective rebates, can be substantial.
