Disputing BK due to inaccurate info

Hmmmmmmm Why Chat,

I can't find a date on this other than "01" but given the amount of discussions on unauthorized inquiries lately and Marie's posts especially about privacy concerns with the hospital having pulled her report without consent, I thought this was REALLY interesting:

"III. Fair Credit Reporting Act

In reaction to concerns over the privacy rights of an individual's consumer credit report, the FTC recently issued an opinion as to the application of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to commercial credit.

The FTC states that a vendor must obtain a consumer's consent prior to pulling a consumer credit report, even for a legitimate business purpose. The FTC opinion also does not recognize a right to pull a consumer credit report for a personal guarantee without first obtaining consent.

The FCRA regulates the use of individual credit reports and credit information. Generally the collection of business, trade, and commercial credit reports are not covered by FCRA. The FCRA insures that credit reporting agencies, and the users of such reports, will respect a consumer's right to privacy by pulling consumer credit reports only after express written authorization of the consumer. "

It goes on to list specific language suggested for obtaining consent.

I just can't figure how companies pulling reports have their butts covered with online applications that don't yet meet authentication standards for electronic signatures?????

If the FTC was concerned enough over the privacy rights for issuing commerical credit to require specific consent even for a valid business purpose surely they would consider the same for us peons if we made enough noise!

Sassy

 

OK- perhaps I did not make myself clear. The reason there are "errors" in the published information on your BK is that ANYONE with the full correct case # AND the correct name can access ALL your BK records on line. The credit bureau's reports for residents in those States(that have online access to public records) have deliberately scrambled BK data on the reports to avoid being sued under the State and Federal Privacy acts.Many credit card companies also scramble account #'s for reports to avoid identity theft.

 

Why Chat,

I did the same as Lisa, registered for pacer, for two reasons, 1., I wasn't sure that I had all my BK paperwork and 2., I wanted to know what was available online.

My information is not scrambled nor is it scrambled by the CRA's, though I know they say it "may" be to protect my privacy -- may however is the key word.

Sassy

 

They are "scrambling" data subject to online inquiries only in those States that have enacted their own Privacy Acts, like Cal. and where there is Cal. caselaw that has already burnt them.

 

Why Chat, are you aware of any Missouri privacy law preventing the listing of complete and accurate bankruptcy data? I am not.

Yet, all three CRA's show $0 assets and liabilities. (Well, Equifax just leaves it blank I think.) They also never have the case number right, because they include other things, like the judge initials or the case close date. Most have the wrong court name listed. Experian says "Involuntary chapter 13 bankruptcy dismissed."

None of them have the date of dismissal right, even though Experian did update and get it closer. They had file closing date, which showed I had two bankruptcies in progress at the same time!

Suffice it to say, I can go online with PACER and get an accurate accounting of every last little detail about the cases, and all I need is my SSN. Yet, not one CRA can get more than the fact that I filed and what chapter listed in a correct manner.

I can understand wanting to make a note of people who fail to follow their chapter 13 plan, but my cases were dismissed before the plan was ever approved, and all creditors were paid in full OUTSIDE of bankruptcy court. The only thing I gained in filing was a small bit of breathing room and ten years of bad credit. It sure as hell wasn't worth it...

 

lyttlemac,

I'm sorry, it was defeated in your legislature at the last minute! That sucks, AZ never does anything unless CA does it first.

Maybe WhyChat will know of any re-proposals since this one failed or can further confirm his sources.

I feel it with you, I found myself online and every detail, searchable by my last name. You don't need to know anything else and up it all comes.

If there were any, the would be part of your state statutes.

Sassy

http://www.llgm.com/articles.asp?article=154

(September 17, 2001) -- California's consumer privacy bill, SB 773, was defeated in the California Assembly early Friday after fierce last minute lobbying. The bill was rejected on a 32-26 vote, failing to attract the 41 votes needed to pass. The measure received no Republican support and 22 lawmakers, including 18 Democrats, declined to vote.

Bankruptcy, Public Records and Privacy:
http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/bankruptcy091800.htm

Privacy and Public Records: There's links to court cases at the bottom of this one
http://www.epic.org/privacy/publicrecords/

 

hey ORiOnKileR,

Any updates on your BK disputes?

 

Re: *** Update ***

So, you got it removed from TU. Congrats. Now, can you tell us what dispute you used on that?

 

Re: *** Update ***

I'd like to see how soon it reappears.

Also how beneficial is it really to get it removed from just one CRA? I mean suppose that's just the way it works out? What if you apply for a mortgage or other major financing, wouldn't they still see it anyway?

Just questions I ponder since I've had no luck getting any of mine to stay off. Perhaps I need a credit repair rest. LOL!

Newstdt

 

Re: *** Update ***

An almost 4 year old bk is not going to prevent someone from getting a mortgage if everything else report wise is in good shape.

And if it was removed from 1 report after 1 dispute, wouldn't you give it another shot? I had a bk removed from Exp and Equifax on the first shot. I would have been crazy to not attempt again with TU.

As for being beneficial. If a creditor pulls only 1 report and you have had the bk removed from that report, it could be quite beneficial being gone.

BTW - it has never reappeared in about 2 years.

 

Re: *** Update ***

Some people say dispute the BK first, then the "included in bankruptcy" tradelines and others say the opposite. I tend to agree with getting the BK removed first. Any other opinions?

 

Re: *** Update ***

I agree, dispute the public record first. Mine have gone off fairly easily.

 

Re: *** Update ***

I have only disputed mine with Experian and TransUnion. The best I have gotten is they managed to change a few dates to be more correct. I think the real problem is I've only used the web-based disputes.

With Equifax, they keep changing the reporting of my BK's. I had two, very close in time to each other, and both dismissed. Back in January of this year, when I first started my credit repair 'journey,' Equifax didn't have either listed. Well, it didn't take them long to change that. Recently, they have remoped one and kept the other. They had both off for maybe a month.

Of course, Equifax is really odd. Right now they have changed my current address to one I haven't been at in about five years...