Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop When I applied for a mortgage in Oct 2001, the broker pulled a tri-merge on me and my partner, reviewed it in person with me while highlighting certain information, and handed me copies including the scores on the spot. It was my inpression that restrictions on showing the mortgage applicant their report had been lifted, but maybe it's only in California (or this one broker, anyone need a superb broker in the Los Angeles area, email me for the contact.)
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop If it is true that the tradelines ar only suppressed, why is it that they alsways have some excuse about reinsertion i.e., we didn't know that x tradeline was reinserted? If they have access to every tradeline, there should be no excuses like this when it comes to reinsertion. They can't have it both ways!!! A
Marie, I saw your post. I am curious how your fraud disputes were resolved by the CRAs and duped creditors, if at all. Did they resolve them in a timely fashion? I wish I had more time to address every members' questions on these Boards. I see many of their complaints which have great merit though I some which unfortunately do not. Fraud is rampant and identity theft is the most serious form of damage to a consumer. I filed the very first identity theft lawsuit [Ferguson v. Ferguson, et al, USDC WD Ark.] and it settled for major bucks. Since then, I have handled hundreds of FCRA lawsuits and many non-lawsuit issues [letter writing, etc.]. I try to chronicle incidents though I am really not a journalistic type. I always try to help put people in touch with competent help in their area. Please let me know what happened with your case. I found that your membership did not allow direct emails. Thanks. David A. Szwak Bodenheimer, Jones, Szwak & Winchell bjks1507@aol.com / 318-424-1400
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop Alf, reinsertion requires the CRA to notify you. This was part of the amended FCRA that came into effect 9/30/97. It is actionable as a violation. David A. Szwak
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop Racer, I like your question. I frequently lecture and address this point. It is true that the CRAs have subscriber contract provisions making subscribers promise not to show the subscriber version credit report copies to the consumer/applicant. The FTC addressed, in an Informal Staff Op Letter, a question from a subscriber as to whether it violated law to allow the consumer to see it or have a copy. The FTC said it is not illegal. The question is whether the provision is contra bonos mores [against public policy] and ought to be illegal if enforced against a subscriber. Though the consumer really lacks standing, the subscriber is frequently cut off for other ostensibly legitimate reasons after-the-fact. Some subscribers still sell to the consumer. Recently I addressed this issue when speaking to a creditors' Bar group. Anne Fortney, formerly of FTC, currently a defense attorney, claimed that no such provisions existed. I offered to show her a contract on the spot and she backed down. The CRA attorneys do not want us discussing this issue. The reason is that the CRAs sell a different report to the subscriber than the consumer. The consumer version has LESS information contrary to industry's claim to the contrary. They want to conceal the report and claim that you cannot prove your credit denial damage or defamation claim if you cannot get the lender to show you the report [or tell the truth about its contents]. The reason the reports differ goes back to the method of inquiry. A "consumer disclosure" [credit report copy] is generated with "complete" ID info so the report is restrictive in content and presumably more accurate. The subscriber version can be accessed through inputting minimal ID data. Further, the matching program engaged for each is different. The disclosure program requires stricter matching compliance [points of correspondence], while the subscriber access is "looser" requiring less points. I hope this highlights the issues some. The key to a case is to access your report on the same day a subscriber pulls it and possess them side-by-side to disclose the 1681e violation. The disclosure report, oddly, will comply with 1681g. Think about it. David A. Szwak
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop § 609. Disclosures to consumers [15 U.S.C. § 1681g] (a) Information on file; sources; report recipients. Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, and subject to 610(a)(1) [§ 1681h], clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer: (1) All information in the consumer's file at the time of the request, ... Hmmm. ALL the information. I guess I don't get why it complies with 1681g either. If we request ALL the information (Full Factual) and they only send the "consumer" report, why can't we sue for nondisclosure? Or, looked at another way, Does the "consumer" report comply with 1681g because that's what we are requesting when we request "our report"? Is it because we are not demanding our full factual report? I understood even if we did we won't get it. Could I file and obtain in discovery?
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop Butch, I got a note that you had posted and thought I would jump back in to explain. 1681g, in theory as there is no clear case law, requires the CRAs to provide all information which pertains to the target consumer and to provide an accurate report to the consumer [what the CRAs like to try to distinguish by calling it a "disclosure;" see Crabill v. TU, US 7th Cir., and lower court discussions. Thus, if the report sent to the subscriber has false data [not belonging to the target] then it will violate 1681e by failing to meet a reasonable procedure to assure maximim possible accuracy yet the disclosure complies with the quid pro quo to disclose the target consumer's data to him. Do you see the argument being made by the defense. See Wendy Porter v. Trans Union, complaint filed in USDC, ED Mich. [which will test this issue shortly]. So, does "all" information under 1681g include erroneous information the CRAs improperly pen to your subscriber version reports? Of course not. Thus, I see it as a 1681e case. David A. Szwak
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop Oh OK ... As long as what IS in there (consumer disclosure) is accurate, then their defense is intact. It's just that NOT everything has to be in there. Good Grief!!! Sounds like we're basically screwed until Congress changes the law or we apply for a mortgage and compare reports.
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop There is a real battle brewing over the FCRA. I recently authored the press release below to help get the word out about just one aspect: "The credit industry lead by groups like the Direct Marketing Association have begun to mislead Congress members by telling them that that Fair Credit Reporting Act will "expire" on the sunset date of the FCRA preemption. Several years ago, industry convinced Congress that it needed a period of 8 years to attain uniformity in its practices of credit reporting, data collection and posting, credit scoring, etc., and that industry needed a reprieve from the hodgepodge, patchwork of state mini-credit reporting laws [which gap filled the many and varied deficiencies of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 USC 1681, et. seq.]. These states' laws were very important and gave consumers greater rights. For example, states' laws added to notice requirements, increased consumer awareness of their rights, forced the credit bureaus to tell consumers about all the data they collect, greater disclosure about who was reporting data, lessened the price of consumer charges for reports [most subscribers pay around 10 cents for a report while consumers, absent a credit denial, pay much more, usually around $8 to $25 per report], etc. The 1996 amendments to the FCRA provided for a preemption of such states' laws for 8 years with a sunset provision in 2004 unless reenacted by Congress. Now Congress is being mislead with misinformation suggesting that the whole FCRA will expire leaving the credit and credit reporting industries in disarray. The media should expose this misinformation. Consumers rarely know the inner workings of the legislative processes and need to contact their Congress members and explain these facts. In a recent speech before Consumers Federation of American which aired on CSpan last week, Sen. Shelby, head of the banking subcommittee, appeared greatly confused when directly asked about the "sunset date" misinformation and continued coddling of the credit reporting and credit industries. He assured us that he would protect consumer rights but have you looked at Congress's record on consumer protection? There is nothing "Fair" about the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Credit Billing Act, or Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The proposed Medical Records Privacy Act from a few years ago was designed to open up the exchange and reporting of medical records information. What deception in a title. The so-called privacy group that was the front straw man for that proposed law was backed by Equifax, et al. Please call upon members of the National Association of Consumer Advocates [Washington, DC], National Consumer Law Center [Boston, Mass.], and United States Public Interest Research Group [US PIRG] for more information." David A. Szwak
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop Sooooo.. If congress does nothing, the state's ( more restrictive) laws will once again take hold. By buffaloing congress into "renewing", they get another 8? years of protection. Perhaps with the current atmosphere of secrecy/patriot act/data collection/restriction of our rights, congress will NOT renew, thinking that they are allowing the CRA's more protection from the consumer? Let's hope so. It'd work in our favor, if we're in a "good" state. "Hey congressman XXX, that Fair credit thing, what a bad thing that is for our countries security. IN the interest of nat. security, let it expire..." haha Radi8
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop Take a look at Shelby's record, Trent Lott's, Connie Mack's, etc. Check out these guys on the banking subcommittees. Look at the PAC dollars. Why would any consumer want a "Federal Law"? Do they think that the federal courts do an adequate job of protecting them? They need to take a week off and watch the process and read some of the rulings. Federal removal jurisdiction [taking power away from your ELECTED state court judges] and federal preemption of state law [and loss of local control] are growing faster than Anna Nicole's butt. The former courts of limited jurisdiction [yes, that's what the federal courts used to be called] now do as much as possible to slam the door on consumers [and plaintiffs for that matter] than ever before. 12 years of conservative [nice way to say anti-consumer, pro big business] judges under Reagan and Bush; now we potentially face the aftermath of the ChoicePoint-Harris coup d'etat [yes, ChoicePoint caused the voter roll debacle in Florida's election; DOJ investigated but did not prosecute]. The current regime will restructure the Highest Court and most of the lower federal courts. [Sounds scarily like "The Pelican Brief"?] Sorry to digress, but seriously, look at the judicial framework and ask yourself if you trust Congress at this critical time. Too many sheep and not enough strong men and women. David A. Szwak
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop I don't agree. 609. Disclosures to consumers [15 U.S.C. § 1681g] (a) Information on file; sources; report recipients. Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, and subject to 610(a)(1) [§ 1681h], clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer: (1) All information in the consumer's file at the time of the request, except that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require a consumer reporting agency to disclose to a consumer any information concerning credit scores or any other risk scores or predictors relating to the consumer. >>> It clearly states ALL information in the consumers file. -Correct or not. Radi8
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop Radi, A "file" is not what you might envision. The data existing in the database consists of many small items of data and small groupings of data brought together at the moment that an inquiry is made. There is no neat little data file or file folder. It is well established that the inquiry data fields inputted define the scope of the outputted report. David A. Szwak
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop Like any database, the resulting output depends on the search query. What I am questioning, is, somewhere, there is a table with my name, social sec. number, and a list of items associated with them. Depending on the "depth" of the search, different "reports" can result. However, that master list of items associated with me, even remotely, is my "file". My "disclosure" report doesn't display deleted items, etc. Apparently some other (mortgage?) reports do. Therefore, they are associated with *me* and part of my "file". I should be able to see them. Radi8
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop That's what David's previous post said. That the industry is calling it a "disclosure". (Disctionary.com) Disclosure: 1) The act or process of revealing or uncovering. 2) Something uncovered; a revelation. 3) That which is disclosed or revealed. In other words I gathered he meant that the word disclosure does NOT have to be exhaustive. Or, not ALL of the info. in your file is required to be part of this "disclosure". Anyway, now we might be nitpickin. lol
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop In other words because the search criteria used to generate a Full Factual report is "looser" (fewer parameters) than the search criteria used to generate a "consumer report" it returns a whole lot more data? Hmmm ... Now that is interesting. Anyone would expect that a report as important as a mortgage Tri-Merge would require more search parameters not fewer. Or at the very least the same number. Isn't that obvious that we have a conspiracy going on? Also, if they use fewer search parameters, in order to return more data, why can't you just say; "this crap isn't mine"?
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop Radi, that is interesting if the mortgage reports contain additional data, like previously deleted data. You may have received what we call a "cleansed credit report." The CRAs are known to do this with complaining consumers. They send them a temporarily [very briefly highlighted/blocked long enough to print a disclosure for you] and send you a cleansed copy then unhighlight it placing the data right back into the database. On the issue of a main index, I think you might want to look at the Metro Tape 2 manual and discussions on the Net. As data is sent to the CRAs, there are "header records" attached which contain identifying data so that data can be matched [subject to match logic and inquiry parameters, etc.] The header data is used to process the respective item of data. That is part of the reason public records data frequently cross-posts on multiple consumers' reports [and explains to some degree the junior-senior, etc., mixed file issue]. Public records frequently are reported in and post to the CRA database with the least ID "header record" as the public record usually does not have the SSN or DOB, etc. Sometimes the address is erroneous, etc. Does that explain what I was addressing? David A. Szwak
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop My interpretation of the *intent* of the law, is to provide to the consumer, any and all information gathered relating to him/her. How are we to "police our own reports" as the CRA's say we are responsible for doing, when they don't provide us with all the data? Radi (losing battles fought here) 8
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop >>>> Yes. If they search for "radi*" they will get a "loose" set of data.- possibly with mistakes. If they search for "radi8, 123-45-678" they will get a tighter data set. Aren't there minimum identification standards for furnishers of data? Radi8
