That's Chexsystems rule as well as a Wells Fargo legality rule. Chex is the credit reporting agency, so we can only say "we cannot open your account at this time based on a negative report from the following institution - Chexsystems". Wells Fargo is not the legal entity to disclose a customer's credit reports or chexsystem reports to them. We can only internalize them, explain the reason for the declination, and send them to find out for themselves. It's unfortunate that our system is that way. It would be nice if they would allow us to give them the same notice, but allow us to check a box or two that describes what's on their record so they have a clue and can get it fixed if possible.
That's typical bank brainwashing dogma. If I had a nickel for everytime I've heard that line: "We're not a credit reporting agency, so... " ... Who in the hell starts all these wives' tales? I can remember when the idiots used to say: "Don't give the consumer his real estate appraisal-- ooh, the psychotic consumer might get pissed off at the appraiser and show up at his office!" Now, the consumer has to SIGN a statement at the application stating that HE UNDERSTANDS that he is entitled to a copy of the appraisal for which he paid. http://www.genesiswebbuilder.com/Forms/Apraisal.pdf Then, again, this is the same industry that likes to tout "EQUAL HOUSING," but asks for a consumer's race, gender and age AND PUTS THEM RIGHT ON THE BLASTED MORTGAGE LOAN APPLICATION. "A consumer reporting agency may not prohibit a user of a consumer report furnished by the agency on a consumer from disclosing the contents of the report to the consumer, if adverse action against the consumer has been taken by the user based in whole or in part on the report." -- http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#607 Harumphing bankers are so corny. You should ask your boss about all that. Then again, you'd better not. You might get fired for thinking independently.
woooooooooo hooooooooo, Greg! <insert cheering here> Sassy BTW, Up your rate to a buck for everytime you've heard that line ;-)
davidkinde, I want to thank you for the information you have supplied on this thread. In all your responses I never noted a defense of what constitutes compliance in the banking industry. You have just been attempting to explain the process...basically a set of facts that are the reality. It isn't up to the peon banking employees to change the laws...it is up to Congress...so if people have complaints then they should write to their congressmen and senators and members of the banking committees. Please continue to contribute your inside knowledge as I for one think it is valuable information for many people who visit this site. JMHO, clc
Re: Chexsystems - Everything I know And I would like to thank Greg Fisher for pointing out the extent to which banking employees can become indoctrinated vis-a-vis the very language they use to describe what are essentially anti-consumer practices. Doc
It's not the industry. It's a FEDERAL REGULATION to make sure that banks are NOT discriminating against potential borrowers based on race, creed, gender, age, etc. <http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/about.htm> The federal government monitors this information. If the applicant declines to state, then it is up to the person taking the application to do so based on surname and physical appearance. Believe me, if it wasn't required, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't do it.
Hear, hear, butch! If the only reason people want to come here is to slam each other, may I suggest: www.collectionindustry.com As for me I appreciate the advice/info that david k has to offer. If you don't like it - LEAVE!
Let me get theis right, Butch. You're complaining because I pointed out a flat-out, incorrect, irresponsible statement by a banker. And you call that "knowledgeable." Right? Or, does this fall in the "Alright. You're right. But you're just not vewwy nice about it!" category? Or is it something else?
Do you know what Chexsystem's position is on this? Why are you saying that David is a "harumphing banker?" Anyone who is employed by a company that uses FCR procedures has to do what their company tells them to. They have a compliance department that tells them what they can and cannot say. My observation is that David is here for himself, not his industry, and, having posted some insider info about the insurance industry, I take all the crap that is dished out here with a grain of salt. Y'all shoot at the most obvious target, is all. How about aiming for the guys that can do something about it? Cause those of us employed in these industries would only lose our jobs by objecting, and we don't love you that much. You're not even cute.
Yep. David came here on his own to tell us what he knows about this. He didn't have to. He's just trying to help. And I agree that he is here for himself only, not as a banker. Accept his offering or don't, but we don't have bash him. This stuff goes on way too much. BTW Breeze, I am too cute. LOL
I have read and responded to the posts within this thread as having been posted by someone that works for a bank and the banking industry as it relates to using ChexSystems. I didn't, and I re-read again, still don't read anything that was aimed at David himself, the person, the poster. Greg was asking for clarification and the source of information that was posted inaccurately: Originally posted by davidkinde "Even after calling in directly and getting the information, bankers aren't allowed to disclose that information directly to the customer. That's why we give them a "Deposit Adverse Action Notice" of where they need to call to find out those records. " ----------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by G. Fisher "Who made the rule about not disclosing to the consumer? " Who made that rule-- the bank or CS? The answer: Originally posted by davidkinde "That's Chexsystems rule as well as a Wells Fargo legality rule. Chex is the credit reporting agency, so we can only say "we cannot open your account at this time based on a negative report from the following institution - Chexsystems". Wells Fargo is not the legal entity to disclose a customer's credit reports or chexsystem reports to them. We can only internalize them, explain the reason for the declination, and send them to find out for themselves. It's unfortunate that our system is that way. It would be nice if they would allow us to give them the same notice, but allow us to check a box or two that describes what's on their record so they have a clue and can get it fixed if possible. " Then Greg corrected the information that was inaccurately stated: "A consumer reporting agency may not prohibit a user of a consumer report furnished by the agency on a consumer from disclosing the contents of the report to the consumer, if adverse action against the consumer has been taken by the user based in whole or in part on the report." -- http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#607 (Sassy note -- this provision, btw, is why we can now get THE credit report with THE scores that a mortgage decision was based on) The next comments I read as directed to the banking industry, not David. This is like CA's saying we can't change or delete what we are reporting, that would be illegal. How long did we believe that before we discovered otherwise, how many are still believing? How are we supposed to discover what is inaccurate and what is not when something is posted as a fact but without the source. When the source is questioned and clarification provided, no matter if the information was right or wrong, the thread turns to: Originally posted by Butch "Great job guys. Lets KILL yet another knowledgeable messanger. " I hope you weren't referring to clc as "another" Butch dude, though I believe that's who you mean. Alive and well and posting still, proof is this very thread. It's irresponsible to take and give advice as factual when it is an opinion or belief. Case in point besides this thread is the other current thread on how to get rid of a BK. I'm not following how clarification and confirmation of information posted as factual equates to a killing -- the same with clc posts. I hope you didn't take the responses personally, David, I didn't intend for mine to be personal to you, rather ChexSystems and the banks using them. ChexSystems and Telecheck too, would have us all believe something is factual when it's not, obviously the banks that use them as well. Just like the CRA's would have us believe there is an FTC opinion letter that agrees with THIER interpretation of an opinion saying that inquiries are a matter of fact, error or not, without mentioning the rest of opinion; the CRA's saying that inquiries aren't disputable; believing there was no cause of action provided by the FCRA for individuals; believing you couldn't sue for anything but damages; or any number of other not entirely true statements or interpretations that this board discovers the truth of -- not the loophole. I don't think it's a killing at all, rather this board working for its intended purpose, together to separate the fact from the fiction. Sassy
I try to open a checking account with $1,000 CASH and sign up for PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT and I'm on CHEX (NOT CORRECT PERSON) so they DON'T WANT MY BUSINESS???
I think it is the tone of the post that denotes whether it is personal or not. But, like I said, when someone in the financial services industry posts, they expect to get "zinger" responses, and take it with a grain of salt. IMO, these posts sound like potshots, not like discussion. I have very high regard for you and Greg, and have defended Greg when he was the target of the potshot-takers (not that he needs defending). There are several folks, not just one, who have been chased off when they were trying to be helpful. I can't recall all the names, and don't have time to search. I don't care what the law says you can do, if the company you work for says not to, you don't. He was told it was some kind of regulation, obviously, so he told us what he knew. I think it's fine to say "that's incorrect" but that's not what's posted here. These comments sound to me like they're directed at David.
Well CS kept me from getting a bank acct for a few years 'cause of A check I bounced as a broke/hungry student. They will send a consumer report. All I know is I sent the 30 dollars to the CA and had an account two weeks later. I wish I had known about this board then and I would have insisted the CA remove the report but it all seemed to work out..still a horrible thing to do to somebody for 30 dollars..
Hey this thread inspired me to do a little research..who knows anything about passchecking.com..they claim to have a list of non-chexsys banks...seems to be a payservice though..snyway just wondering
How long have I been beating my dog? I didn't say he was harumphing, but I mean to imply that he works for one of the biggest banks in the country-- and they're all full of harumphing bankers. Yes, I'm making a broad, sweeping generalization. Whoop-dee-doo. I'm not PC. This guy is a not a harumphing banker; he's a greenhorn who took the notion that banks can't give the consumer a credit report because of "Chexsystems rule as well as a Wells Fargo legality rule" as the truth. One at a time. If Chexsystems has such a rule, it is a bold violation of the FCRA (see the quote of the law above). Let's find out if that exists in writing. Second, if Wells Fargo's procedures and policies exist as such in writing just because Chexsystems ordered them not to release the reports-- and their lawyers actually reviewed the "legality" of the order-- and they continue to give Chexsystems money for their reports, well, ladies and gentlemen, we've got an even bigger story, here. And, I'd bet there are a few other banks with the same-- they tend to boilerplate this kind of crap and make it multiply so they can all feel comfortable saying "We just follow standard industry practice, your honor!" Again, I admit the broad brush. Sue me. So, how about it David? Did Chexsystems really make that limitation? And do those words actually exist in the bank's manual (or is this just a bank spoken-but-not-written rule)?
I had to take a break, took a nap and thought about it. Look, I love ALL you guy's. There are a few of you that frustrate me sometimes, (I'm sure the feeling is mutual) . We need not pretend that this thread has NOT had a general tone that would make any newcomer uncomfortable. I don't know why but it seems that the more someone knows about a given subject, the more there is a tendency to "test his metal" from his first post. Are we so shell shocked from Pulse like trolls that we have to "see if they can take it"? If you were all a bunch of little people who had to chase anyone away because you feel threatened I could understand it. BUT YOU'RE NOT! You're all above this! That's the reason I'm frustrated. Some day someone is gonna come along who can REALLY help us with a LOT of issues. I just hope the confronational style doesn't scare them away too. Love Always, Dad
