There have been several posts lately regarding credit transactions > 150K and the 7 year reporting clock and I am confused. The FCRA states § 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681c] (a) Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information: (1) Cases under title 11 [United States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be, antedate the report by more than 10 years. (2) Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period. (3) Paid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven years. (4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years.(1) (5) Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years.1 (b) Exempted cases. The provisions of subsection (a) of this section are not applicable in the case of any consumer credit report to be used in connection with (1) a credit transaction involving, or which may reasonably be expected to involve, a principal amount of $150,000 or more; (2) the underwriting of life insurance involving, or which may reasonably be expected to involve, a face amount of $150,000 or more; or (3) the employment of any individual at an annual salary which equals, or which may reasonably be expected to equal $75,000, or more. My interpretation of this was that negative information stemming from a credit transaction > 150K could stay on longer than 7 years. For example you take out a 200,000 mortgage and default, I interpretated the FCRA to mean that the 7 year rule does not apply to such information. Others on the board(much more knowledgable than me)have said that it means if you apply for a loan greater than 150K then hidden negative information could be reveled to the lender. So basically if you have negative information it can stay around forever with regard to transaction >150K . Doesn't seem right to me.
"There have been several posts lately regarding credit transactions > 150K and the 7 year reporting clock and I am confused. The FCRA states § 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681c]" [ Actually this is NOT very well stated because it says "contained" in the consumer report. This implies that deleted information is no longer "contained" in your report. It probably should say "made available to those who request the consumer report". The problem is that even the items of information that are NOT to be reported, as outlined in §605 et seq., don't get deleted from your report, they only get suppressed. They CANNOT be reported to those who request your file but that doesn't mean they are not there anymore. BUT there are exclusions to this rule as outlined in section B. for example a large mortgage, nice job or life insurance. In those instances, I'm sorry to say the "suppressed" information is then reported. It's just that simple. ] "My interpretation of this was that negative information stemming from a credit transaction > 150K could stay on longer than 7 years." [ All your transactions are on file for more than 7 years. They are not reported in the ordinary course of business. For transactions that involve one of the exclusions in §605 (B) et seq., then all your transactions are reported. ] "For example you take out a 200,000 mortgage and default, I interpretated the FCRA to mean that the 7 year rule does not apply to such information. Others on the board(much more knowledgable than me)have said that it means if you apply for a loan greater than 150K then hidden negative information could be reveled to the lender." [ Congress intended to provide an extra layer of protection for companies regarding those larger transactions outlined in B. With the ability of these companies to dig deeper into your credit they may avoid lending a larger mortgage, give a big job to or insure someone they otherwise might not want. ] See?
Butch, That is exactly as I read it. But how are the CRA's getting by with not disclosing this information to us? If I had all the suppressed info I would challenge old stuff instead of ignoring it. JohnM
[ Congress intended to provide an extra layer of protection for companies regarding those larger transactions outlined in B. With the ability of these companies to dig deeper into your credit they may avoid lending a larger mortgage, give a big job to or insure someone they otherwise might not want. ] So much for "starting over", if lenders or future employes can dig up old information and deny you credit or a job based on it, is it BK or the removal of derogs really a fresh start? Especially when we can't see everything that is being reported about us? Also, shouldn't the values keep going up, along with the cost of living? A $150,000 house is nothing these days... same for a $75,000 job.
Re: Credit transaction > 150K quest As I mentioned in the other thread (why are there two threads, lol?), this simply did not occur in my case. We recently acquired a "jumbo" mortgage (well in excess of the $150k threshhold example mentioned here), and my reports did not show any previously-deleted info. Doc
Re: Credit transaction > 150K quest If that is the way it is it then in reality negative information that is older than seven years is actually much worse than stuff that is more recent due to the fact that it is indisputable. Not only can you not dispute it you have no way of knowing what is on there. What if a CA buys an a chargeoff that is older tha 7 years and reports with the correct dates(making it elgible for invisble post-7 year storage? In theory you would never see this and it might be yours and it might not be. Maybe Fla-tan could shed some light with his mortgage expertise?
