What if one bureau removes an item but others do not? The credit bureaus work entirely independently of one another. Although new federal laws require that the credit bureaus communicate changes to one another, in practice this is more the exception than the rule. For all practical purposes, you should assume that you must get each negative item deleted three times. { Although new federal laws require that the credit bureaus communicate changes to one another,} what the? who the? how the? has anyone used this this approach to get items removed? I have at least one example of one CRA removing something but the other verifying it.
Hmm thats is what I figured but I got this from the creditnet faq section.. Its fun to look at the entire website.. I forget that its there sometimes
The only thing I can find that even resembles that statement is rule 611 of the FCRA: (D) Automated reinvestigation system. Any consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis shall implement an automated system through which furnishers of information to that consumer reporting agency may report the results of a reinvestigation that finds incomplete or inaccurate information in a consumer's file to other such consumer reporting agencies.
The CRA's DO communicate with each other. 611, that Cibo points out is all that's necessary. The problem is that they only record results that behoove THEM not YOU.
I have read the same thing at least two different times in Credit repair books, but i don't know the exact statute. However in Colorado, if you sue a CRA and have negative tradelines removed, the other CRAs (which do business in Colorado) have to delete those same lines. Hmm, pick a CRA who settles easily. Sue. Settle for deletions. Have THREE perfect credit reports. George, don't you live in CO. Oh, i forgot. You already have perfect credit. humblemarc
Here's where the CRA's share info with each other: http://www.cdiaonline.org/contact.cfm I don't know why we can't all play with the same damn dice! Sassy
Whatcha mean Sassy?? This is interesting: How private is the information in a credit report? The Fair Credit Reporting Act, grants credit report access to companies which have a "permissible purpose." The FCRA specifies those purposes as the granting of credit, the collection of a debt, the underwriting of insurance, employment purposes, for issuing a license as required by some government agencies or for a legitimate business transaction between a business and a consumer. Obtaining a credit report under false pretenses, or improper use of a credit report is a violation of federal law. When privacy violations occur, the credit reporting industry notifies the appropriate law enforcement authorities. From now on, for NON PP inquiries, demand that the CRA notify the appropriate law enforcement authorities. And reuest proof that's been done? Just thinkin out LOUD!!! lol
whatchamean whatImean, Butch dude, Section 611 5(d) which states: (D) Automated reinvestigation system. Any consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis shall implement an automated system through which furnishers of information to that consumer reporting agency may report the results of a reinvestigation that finds incomplete or inaccurate information in a consumer's file to other such consumer reporting agencies. The CRA's SHALL have the system, the furnishers MAY use it to report results that are incomplete or inaccurate to the OTHER CRA's. The furnishers, per the FCRA, have a duty to update and correct information to ALL CRA's they report to, not just the one you happened to dispute a tradeline with (if it's not verified). This site is where the reporting occurs, the mama of all reports, I'm betting. LOL. http://www.acb-credit.com/acdv.cfm The CDIA Automated Consumer Dispute Verification (ACDV) Process was developed by an industry task force and its credit grantor steering committee on behalf of the credit community. CCNS is provided by GE Information Services and runs on its teleprocessing network. The personal computer application software was developed by certified software providers. Each participating consumer reporting agency and data provider has its own CCNS mailbox. Consumer dispute information is transmitted electronically using a standard data format developed by the CDIA task force and based on the industry standard Metro Format. The CDIA Automated Consumer Dispute Verification format allows the consumer reporting company to transmit the consumer's dispute and, in return, allows the data provider to respond. When a consumer contacts the reporting agency with a dispute, the consumer reporting agency transmits the information in question to the appropriate data provider's electronic mailbox using the CDIA ACDV format and standardized dispute codes. The data provider accesses the GE CCNS network, receives the dispute data on its personal computer, researches the disputed customer account information, and transmits a response back to the consumer reporting agency's electronic mailbox. If the data furnisher finds that the information is correct, the response goes back only to the reporting agency that initiated the dispute. However if the data provider finds that changes should be made, the response not only goes back to the credit bureau that initiated the dispute but also automatically, via electronic copies, to the other nonreporting bureaus -- at no additional charge to the data provider. The originating consumer credit reporting agency and the nonreporting bureaus retrieve the data furnisher's response from their mailboxes and update their credit files accordingly. The originating reporting agency then responds back to the consumer who filed the dispute. It's the responsibility of the data furnisher to update its internal accounts receivable information to ensure that disputed data will not be reported in the future. You notice YOU don't get to have that information -- for now they are getting around it by pretending to be CRA advocates. Notice the system only shares information if it is found to not be correct -- there's an underlying assumption that the information is reported the same to each CRA. Or, if my paranoia takes over, that you have the burden of making sure it is. Now that there's a mama-system, the FCRA should be updated to the furnisher SHALL... but then, that would put two of three out of business. Sassy
Butch dude!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you know what you found? How can the agencies maintain that reporting inquiries are a matter or record/listing, factual, and as a matter of policy not investigate them, when they are charged with notifying law enforcement of privacy violations? They surely wouldn't KNOW there were privacy violations if they didn't have to investigate our inquiry disputes for non permissable purpose. Sassy
Blind Squirrel, This is bugging me now and stuck in my head. It says the consumer reporting INDUSTRY reports to law enforcement not consumer reporting agency. However, they'd be getting information and details from the agency -- multiply that by all the agencies doing the same. They're more like the CRA of the CRA's, forget mama, though mama's are very powerful ;-). Even bigger than that, you notice their international areas, they could be the CRA of the world. I can't recall the ownership of equifax and experian, but I know TU is owned by another country. Other countries have stringent privacy protection laws versus ours -- data cowboys they call us. It seems to me that we're not well supported in the rest of the world as a nation, save our money and willingness to share it; we'll see with the iraq dealings. In a global environment and electronically managed systems without country boundaries and especially laws, we could really be at a mouse clicker's mercy and the mouse clicker may not even be subject to the same laws as us. Given the impact of our reports and its link to our economy as a country, we're in deep shit, I say. Just thinking out loud, LOL, and squirreling away acorns. Sassy
Now does all this apply ONLY to agencies and companies that ARE members? Or to everyone? I noticed that their list of members so far seems a little skimpy, comparatively speaking.
I would think that the policy of a group does not usually carry the force of law. Further, I would think that even when it does, almost invariably the ones attempting to legally enforce such policy must themselves be members of the group. Of course, not being a lawyer, I am only entitled to hold that as an opinion. I doubt seriously that the consumer credit industry flagship organization is going to sue a member, and they most probably can not sue a non-member, even if they wanted to.
