When a CRA deletes TL's do they REALLY delete?

You raise an excellent question, what exactly is the "full consumer file"?

I recently thought I would get a glimpse into this, as a position I was entertaining entailed the "consumer investigative report", the dreaded one referred to in the FCRA. Howver, we stopped before it was requested. I was curious to see what was actually in this "full report".

However, in your case there may be "errors" you cannot see (re: FICO score). We all "assume" the FICO model calculates its score based upon what we "see" in our report. However, we are looking at written verbage, the FICO model looks at the "coding" behind that verbage.

My hypothesis is that though your report "looks" the same, there's a good chance someone misentered code data when "correcting" your file. I should note that I'm assuming no other factors such as utilization, new acct., etc. happened over the weekend.

I've come to think this is the "FICO" world we cannot see, and are truly powerless to address. The codes used each month by data furnishers are subject to "human error", yet may remain blind to us.

You make me think of a new frontier with this scenario, attempting a dispute that a TL could be coded incorrectly....really, unless it translated into a noticeable "written" error, how would we know?

 

Additional thought:

If "code errors" do translate into a reduced FICO score, then the "damages" are readily obvious. The question, do you have/need to "know" HOW the damage is created to file suit?

I think we assume you do "have to know", but does (just) the result of a reduced FICO score satisy "evidence" of damages? Common sense says it would (in the absence of any other data changes).

I would be interested to see how this suit plays out.

 

My point is that you have to look at the "ingredients" of the hot dog, bun, mustard, etc. to see IF they are "exactly" alike. The two dogs may look the same, taste the same, etc. BUT..are they really the same? Or does one "ingredient" have an error your senses can't detect?

 

Your situation is very interesting to me, it's been an interest of mine trying to "crack" the FICO model. Like you, I have always been baffled by these cases, "seemingly" identical reports with (wide) variances in numeric score.

I finally went back to a problem solving methodology that says you basically must not "assume" anything. It dawned on me one day when I thought about how "quickly" a FICO score calculates and reports. There is NO way the model is actually "reading" the report data. The model cannot read verbage, only "code". A look at the CDIA manual (of how to "correctly" code accounts) examples the possible range of human errors.

This "score disparity" starts to make sense when you start assuming that different codes can "read out" with the same verbage, but be "read" by an algorithm model differently. So, my thesis is that the FICO model is reading something completely different than we read on our reports, and the FICO models "read" is completely blind to us.

I feel stronger in my thesis with an example like yours, you have almost "real time" data, (over a weekend) where the possibility for different data to enter is pretty much nil.

 

Exactly, ...or is there? Obviously a "case" like this would open a Pandora's box of both business, legal and culpability issues (lots of finger pointing I'm sure!).

But..back to the "resulting" damages, a consumer would have a"right to know" what is damaging their credit score, correct? There is the obvious "common sense" now that it is the "credit score" which is a decision making factor, hence more weight on the "damage impact".

 

IIRC, FICO also changes based on economic data extrinsic to the person who is the subject of the report. In fact, this can hardly help but be the case since occupation is taken into account. If you were constructing FICO, the future outlook for specific occupations and professions would be of key importance to the lenders depending on your advice. Let alone the performance of the economy as a whole or the regional differences.

Lenders don't want to be thinking about economic conditions to such an extent that they have to decide that a 702 will be needed this week when a 690 would have been good enough last week. They'd rather know that someone with a 702 has a certain risk of defaulting and that the risk will remain relatively constant across all 702s and will be the same for the 702s that may be encountered in the future. I think FICO will be found accomodating that "set it and forget it" mentality, and that creditors changing their standards will be occasional rather than a day-to-day constant.

Editing to add that my point would be that the missing points may not all be due to intrinsic factors, extrinsic factors might also play a proper role. It would make it even harder to prove damages.

 

You make some valid points, however Fly's case is intriguing because of the close time differential. It is highly unlikely external factors would change in the timeframe Fly's report did. I am excited about Fly's situation, as it is as close to an "ideal experiment" as you can realistically get. Where the only variable is "human hands touching the data".

 

I know that we are "not" supposed to cast aspirsions as to damages here but, that is what this is going to boil down to if things come to a head.

Establishing liability would be difficult enough but, placing injury on Experian would be even moreso.

 

If you read above, you will see were the potential damages may appear.

 

Maybe I'm missing something but, I don't see any reference to damages. I just see a reference to lost FAKO points which doesn't equate to damages.

Again, I may be missing something here . . .

 

Just a word of advice, there have been a few cases of late wherein fees are imposed to pro se litigants for cases without merit.

None of my business and I'm not telling anyone what to do but, if a civil action were institued upon the factual allegations made herein the Plaintiff would probably be a prime candidate for such a directive.

 

Enough said. Kinda, shoulda, oughta have stopped there.

Either that or volunteered what you mighta, woulda, coulda do.

 

I think he said what he would have done--drop it.

 

Is there an echo in here?

In here?

In here?

 

Potential DOES NOT equate to ACTUAL.

 

RE: CRA "codes."

I haven't tried to marry my reports to CDIA codes, but I do know that the reports I get directly from the CRAs are different than what shows up on True Credit, and the like. The CRA reports are much more detailed.

That said, I agree that there's plenty of room for slipping a digit here or there.

 

This is where "Pandora's Box" opens...to address your mention of the FAKO score, let's assume that the FICO may have changed also (just for the sake of argument).

So, a FICO/FAKO changes based upon data entry of code for a report. Who is liable? Is it Fair Issac, as they issue the "final product" purchased, and used in the credit lending decision? Is it the CRA? Where the employee miscoded, fat fingered, or didn't know the "proper code" to enter? This is akin to "Fly's" example of the "hot dog"; if a "toxic" ingredient is substituted, and the consumer becomes ill, who is responsible? The retailer who sold the hot dog? The manufacturer? In hard good products it generally goes back to the manufacturer.

Fait Isaac does have the disclaimer that the score is based upon "information contained in your credit report", so I'm certain their legal department has considered this issue, and has tried to cover themselves legally.

However, with your credit reports, when you see a "discrepancy", you have the "right" to dispute information you feel is inaccurate and/or incomplete. You cannot "dispute" a credit score, even when you "know" something is inaccurate and/or incomplete. Out of this I feel "credit score manufaturers have a responsibility for the "quality of their ingredients" as well. As the real world has evolved, damages suffered will (most likely) result from your credit score, NOT your report.

In manufacturing, one must warrant the quality of the final product, and this warranty is based upon systems to verify the quality of supplied "ingredients", (although the manufacturer of those ingredients must have systems to ensure their product quality). So, what systems do FICO/FAKO have to examine the quality of their "ingredients" into a product that is so critical to financial health?

The juxtaposition here is the contrast of obvious "damages/potential damages" resulting from a drop in a credit score, yet the inability to point to evidential cause based upon the visible (written) evidence-your credit report in a case such as Fly's. There has to be an extension of the requirement of CRAs to report "accurate and complete" information, which extends to the coding of the data. So, in my long winded speech here, I would say the "first" liabiity would fall on the credit reporting agencies who enter code information. When we "see" a drop in our credit scores, and then we "see" the changed data in our report, the current laws state we dispute with the credit reporting agencies, (even before disputing with the OC). So, the "industry system" is implying that this liability falls upon the CRAs. (Forum legal minds, please help me out w/opinions on this!)

I think someone bringing a case like this forward would be fascinating, it would truly expose what happens with the data furnished and reported. I feel this is a facet of this industry which has not been delved into, and ironically, may have the greatest impact, and (potential) damages consequences.

Apex, I agree with your statement/question re: the (final?) liability, but therein lies the heart of the matter; if the industry does not allow you to "see" what is actually "in your report", then who is liable? I would love to see a judge/jury try to sort this out. The issue here is the "unknown" re: how the scoring models work. To get to the heart of the issue, it would have to be shown how the models calculate these codes. For otherwise, the difficulty of evidencing if a "1" or a "2" code causes "damages". As a good example, the "fields" in a credit report can state: "consumer disputes"or something similar; does the FICO model include this data in its calculations? A "manual review" implies a feeling that information would be considered, but we are completely clueless as to its impact on a credit score.

As I see more of these "what happened, my FICO dropped" questions, the more I feel my thesis may be correct (re: incorrect coding). Again I think this is an aspect that has yet to be touched upon in credit repair.

Sorry for the going on and on, but I think this is a fascinating aspect of the credit industry, that to date has gone unchallenged, though it is the most crucial aspect of credit decisions now.