From Greg Fisher's site: Credit bill would benefit consumers By: February 26, 2003 Rep. Victor G. Moffitt, a Re-publican who represents District 28 in Coventry recently intro-duced a bill that would protect consumers from having their credit score reduced each time their credit is checked. Moffitt said, "I find it incom-prehensible that something as simple as checking your own credit for possible errors can re-sult in harming your overall credit score. When I learned of this deceptive practice, I was compelled to introduce legisla-tion to end this immediately. This clearly discriminated against consumers shopping around for better rates on mort-gages, automobiles, et cetera." The bill (2003 H-5280) would prevent credit bureaus from us-ing the number of credit checks a person has had performed as an indicator of that person's credit. Moffitt believes that the three major credit bureaus use this practice because they think if your credit is checked often the possibility of credit risk is higher. The bill was co-sponsored by Representative Anastasia Wil-liams (D. Dist. 9) and Repre-sentative Bruce Long (R-Dist. 74. It has been referred to the House Corporations Committee for consideration. ©The Narragansett Times 2003 Reader
That would be super cool if it could pass. However, there are a lot of creditors out there who would still deny someone for having too many inquiries. It doesn't look like this bill would address that, so all this would do would be to stop the score from being affected.. not to make people more credit worthy in the eyes of certain creditors.
im thinking the inquiry section, may not appear to the potential creditor at all, so they may all now be force coded as soft inquirys, I will inevestigate this further on Monday, I work in polotics here, and think this could really rattle a few cages if a D and R both support the billl going into the House..
The inquiry needs to remain on credit reports. How would we know who pulled our credit reports if it was completly eliminated? But I do agree that "hard" inquiries should NOT be reported to creditors or factored into the FICO scoring system. If I go shopping around town for the best auto insurance rates I won't be able to get a credit card for at least the next 6 months. Not only that, each time I go shopping my score gets a little worse. What a crock of sh1t.
The worst part is people pull hards all the time without permission. The CRAs will not do anything. The OCs will not do anything. they each say to get ahold of the other. It is ridiculous. It took me 2 months, over 2 dozen calls, and countless hours for me to have one hard changed to a soft. Even after all of that experian still refused to delete even with a letter from the OC. They are so full of crap. Hards should be removed- period.
While we are on this subject, here are some other things that could be done to fix the scoring system: 1. The system penalizes cardholders for carrying a high balance on any single card even when the overall balance to limits ratio is low. This should be eliminated because it is not related to risk. It just means that the cardholder prefers using one card over others maybe because the terms or perks are better. 2. Scoring based on length of residency/length of employment may have been rational in grandpa's day but people move alot now-- usually in search of employment opportunities either with the same company in a different city or when changing companies. It doesn't make sense to ding a credit score for this. 3. Judgments may or may not reflect on creditworthiness but are always treated as if they do. On the one hand, a judgment may be for an unpaid bill. It makes sense that this type of judgment would reduce the credit score. However, a judgment may be for an insured loss and the only reason the judgment appears on the report is that the insurance company refused to settle, took the case to trial and lost. This scenario says nothing about credit risk since the insured was never on the hook to pay money in the first place.
** 9000 *** 1*here are some other things that could be done to fix the scoring system: 2*The system penalizes cardholders for carrying a high balance on any single card even when the overall balance to limits ratio is low. 3** This should be eliminated because it is not related to risk 4*It doesn't make sense to ding a credit score based on length of residency/length of employment daveberk ============== 1* Fixing it is not the solution elimination of it is.2* All part of the hoax folks.3* Neither is Fico or credit reporting,4* Reporting and scoring isn't about sense its about taking consumers for all you can get out of them. The END ************************* LB 59
Hey, this does sound like a good idea ... Anybody forsee any problems if this bill passes? I think those in favor of this should hop on the bandwagon ... Anybody know how we could (quickly) show our support in favor of this bill?
I too applaud this bill and hope that it passes, however, this bill is introduced in Rhode Island assembly, and not the US House of Reps, and even if it passes, it would affect only Rhode Island natives. Receiving support from people from other states may not help the cause of this bill. FYI. -- lakpr
I know this thread is quite aged, but I must say, I agree with GEORGE. This has been my opinion for a loooong time. Inquiries should only be visible to the consumer.
BACK IN THE "OLDEN" DAYS...somebody looked at the credit report with their EYES!!! "IF" nothing BAD is on the report...they HAD TO APPROVE!!! Now you can be DENIED because the COMPUTER SAY SO!!! EVEN IF YOU NEVER HAD ANY "BADDIES" If you have the income and the history...IT ALWAYS SHOULD BE APPROVED...(not talkin' 20 or 30 new accounts...maybe 2 or 3 in a year) I WENT FOR ALMOST 2 SOLID YEARS OF DENIAL AFTER DENIAL..."PERFECT HISTORY" FOR 24+ YEARS GOT ME NOTHING!!! DUE TO THE UGLY F.I.C.O. MONSTER!!!
Then you missed out on collecting a bunch of money. 1: Pulling a hard inquiry is actionable under FCRA. When I have this situation, I send an ITS letter to the company that pulled the inquiry demanding $1000 Statutory damages, and sue if they don't respond. have I collected? YES!!!. 2: If the CRA won't delete or change the entry in your CRA file even though you submitted documentary evidence, then you should sue the CRA. They have an obligation to act on documentary evidence submitted by the consumer (although as a matter of policy they tend to ignore any documentary evidence submitted by the consumer unless that evidence is damaging). Failure or refusal to do so is actionable under FCRA and Trans Union signed a Consent Decree with the FTC in the 1990's about just this matter. You are losing out on the opportumnity to collect $2000 each time they point the finger at each other and say "it's HIS job, not mine". The law says otherwise. As we speak I have a $1000 settlement check coming from a company that pulled an unauthorized inquiry along with a letter from them stating that the inquiry should be deleted. If the CRA's (all 3 of them) refuse to delete the Inquiry, then I sue each CRA that refuses.
ELIMINATE THE "INQUIRY" FROM THE CREDIT REPORT ALTOGETHER!!! GEORGE~~A.K.A. RODNEY DANGERFIELD 700 ================ I have always said that from the begining. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'"""""""""
Not only that, each time I go shopping my score gets a little worse. *What a crock of sh*t. dixidriftr ============== *But it's a pot of gold for creditors.
