Deleting BKs, A Flaw

Re: Anthony: Two points.

Here is an FTC opinion that may be of interest:

1. Is a commercial service that reports only "public record" information a consumer reporting agency (CRA)?
An entity that meets the definitional requirement for a "consumer reporting agency" (CRA) in Section 603(f) of the FCRA is covered by the law even if the only information it collects, maintains, and disseminates is obtained from "public record" sources.
Section 603(f) defines a "consumer reporting agency" as any person "which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information ... for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties ...". In turn, Section 603(d) defines a "consumer report" as the communication of "any information" by a CRA that bears on a consumer's "credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living" that is "used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part" for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing eligibility for credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, employment purposes, or any other purpose authorized under Section 604.
If the commercial service you describe regularly provides information for the purposes set forth in the definition of consumer report in Section 603(d), the agency is a consumer reporting agency and the information it collects from public record sources and maintains in its computerized files is subject to the FCRA. The "public record" status of any of this information is irrelevant.(1) The application of the FCRA to services that collect "public record" information is discussed in more detail in the enclosed staff opinion letter (LeBlanc, June 9, 1998).

1. The FCRA is concerned with, inter alia, the accuracy of information being reported by consumer reporting agencies. Public-record source information may be inaccurate, or errors may occur in the transcription of the information by a CRA. In either case, it is important for the consumer to know that inaccurate information is being disseminating by a CRA so that he or she may take steps to correct the information.

 

FYI, I just found that when conducting a PACER search, one must select the specific court to search (for example, Northern Central CA).

If a person has moved to another state since the filing, the search would produce no matches.

 

So if I had a BK from 10 years ago and now have 850 FICO and applied for a mortgage and a question on the app says "Have you filed a BK in the last 7 years" and I say no, can they then go into PACER and deny based on that even though it's 10 years later and not within the 7?

 

Anthony,

I checked out the Pacer website and read the other posts here.

Two Questions come to mind?

1. To register with Pacer do you have to have certain qualifications Example be a mortgage broker or lender etc.? Or can anyone who is just nosey join?

2. Pacer lists costs of $.60 per minute of dial up time and $.07 for page printing, if I understood it correctly. Is there a large fee for this service that I did not see.

What I am getting at is that - a lender may have a valid reason to check on a BK but...

It's none of my business to be checking on someone else. I don't think I should be allowed to see if you for instance have had a BK.

Thanks for bringing this issue up.

Jim

 

Re: Anthony: Two points.

Cole:

That's a very interesting post about what constitutes a credit reporting agency. In my mind, according to my personal interpretation of what the law says, whether or not a company or other person or entity is or is not a CRA is going to depend a lot upon the context one looks at the situation.

We already have a couple of examples of that posted.

One person seems to think that Pacer is in actuality a CRA or might possibly be construed as being a cra in net effect.

Anthony quite correctly shoots that idea in it's foot.

But let us use a company who provides a merged report about you to a creditor when you apply to a lender for credit. Although the company who provides the merged report to the creditor might deny that they are a CRA, the reality is that they are. The creditor probably does not think that he is using a credit bureau to supply his reports, but he is. However, once we come to that realization, the next question might become one of was the information Joe's Credit Merge the reason that ABC Bank turned you down and what to do about it if Joe's information ruined your chances of buying a home or caused you to pay much higher interest rates. Well, if Joe reported information that you later proved to be erroneous, you might very well sue him for his misinforming his customer who used Joe's info against you in some way.

While all of that might or might not be proveable in a court of law is really neither here nor there for this discussion, but it does bring up a point we all need to watch out for, and that is the context in which the law may or may not be properly or even profitably applied. Joe might actually be a CRA, but how much good is it likely to do you to try and sue him for his transgressions against you?? Probably not much.

And Anthony's point too. The pacer might be thought of by some as a CRA. And in reality, maybe it is. But since it's an arm of the court (if I understand Anthony correctly) you can't sue them even if they did lie about it.

All I'm trying to point out here is that you have to get the context right, and it isn't always that easy fo figure out.

That's why one often needs to be trained or have the experience to know and recognize those subtle differences.

 

Re: Anthony: Two points.

There are some FTC attorney opinions about what constitutes a credit reporting agency. I think that would be the defining opinion.

Jim, none of us like it, but court records are public, whatever they are. I can walk into any court, request whatever info I want, and they will give it to me, no questions asked. That's just the way it is/has always been.

breeze

 

1. Nope. It's public record, so anyone can request access. I have one.

2. That's all. You don't even have to pay the $.60 if you have Internet access. Just the $.07 per page viewed (whether or not you print).

 

Many states have listed their database online, and if you want a record in one of those states, the link is there (on the PACER page), and the lookup is free.

breeze

 

Re: Anthony: Two points.

Bill,

PACER is nothing but the court's database which has been put online. Databases can't lie. The database may be incorrect because a person did something somewhere back along the line, but a database has no motives, doesn't have bad days, can't be insulted if you disagree with it. It just is.

I can't imagine anyone with the skill level and intelligence to be posting here who can't comprehend that fact.

People who want to comment about what it is or isn't should go look at it first.

We might feel it shouldn't be so readily available. Used to be, you had to make the effort to go to the courthouse to see the records. Now, if you wonder about your boss or your neighbor, you can look it up while you sip coffee in your jammies.

breeze

 

Re: Anthony: Two points.

Breeze:

One of several possibilities exists here.
First of all, I was agreeing with what you and Anthony said, not disagreeing.

Maybe I just didn't make that clear enough. Whatever.

Someone earlier had said that they thought that if it reports, it has to be a CRA, and I said (or was trying to say) was that such isn't always necessarily so.

The old saw about if it waddles like a duck, squawks like a duck, it must be a duck isn't always so.

Have a nice day