Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop Interestingly in Sheridan v. Trans Union, Equifax, TRW, et al, USDC MD Fla., I took the deposition of a mortgage reporting company's [Datafax; the biggest in Florida at that time] credit report reinvestigation supervisor. Breaking that down some: Mortgage reports are usually a compilation of the Big 3 credit reports, which have been re-checked by the MRC for accuracy and one accurate, non-duplicated item report is prepared. Mortgages are protracted so no concern about instant credit. This lady, Judith Chipley, in her worldly experience and proferring as an industry expert, testified that she found that between 50 to 90% of all credit reports contained errors. Half that amount were so serious as to cause credit denials. Her testimony was reported by media like Privacy Journal, etc., and her deposition transcript is still available online. Should have seen those defense lawyers objecting to their own witness's remarks. What a sight. People who work in this MRC industry, like the debt collection industry, know the secrets. The CRAs have engaged in a race to the bottom. Pushing the limits of every rule. Remember we are not their customer; only their commodity. David A. Szwak
No Matt. We're only talking about the expanded reports (Full Factual Reports) for things like Mortgages or jobs that may pay $75,000+. There is a mechanism which allows the creditor to pull a report which contains more info. than the regular report.
No; be aggressive about it and document all of your efforts. Nothing by phone unless you follow it with a confirmation letter. Avoid internet efforts to dispute unless you can document it. Be prepared for litigation hell if you sue them for more than a nominal and quick buck in settlement. The best cases are not "accuracy" disputes. The best cases involve fraud and other instances where there is no question but that you are correct in your dispute. You need to obtain as many records as you can pre-suit because they conveniently disappear post-suit. David A. Szwak
David, If you have any case law links, or deposition links to share we'd be grateful. Oh - And thanks for your participation tonight/this morning.
We've noticed that even with our little suits, the person who is suing them can no longer get reports.
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop From the FCRA: "(c) Disclosure of consumer reports by users allowed. A consumer reporting agency may not prohibit a user of a consumer report furnished by the agency on a consumer from disclosing the contents of the report to the consumer, if adverse action against the consumer has been taken by the user based in whole or in part on the report." http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#607
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop Thanks for your e-mail, David, and thanks for accepting my invitatation to come here - the information you provided in this thread alone is worth its weight in gold. Saar
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop I would think this would open the CRA's up for serious liability...particularly if there were, for example, tradelines being reported on the subscriber version (and not the consumer version) that were detrimental. While they might rely in general on the fact that the consumer would have a difficult time proving it as they are not to be shown the subscriber version, it seems to me that the subscriber version could be obtained through discovery if a lawsuit were filed. Is this not the case? L
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop Click here: CREDITNET | Straight Talk | | My copy NOT like creditors' copy http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&pgnum=1&postid=290519#post290519 If after reading this thread you don't grasp what the following statements mean then you just plain aren't ever gonna get it. *********************************** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CREDITNET | Straight Talk | | Rule of "72" And Your Score http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&pgnum=5&postid=289645#post289645 TRILLIONS of dollars over the next 15 years were moved from the "old" kind of life insurance to the "new" kind. 1*I point this out because this represents the incredible battle going on between consumers and industry. Today, their is another war underway that would absolutely DWARF this 1974 stampede. 2*Every creditor in business is hell bent on charging you the HIGHEST possible interest rate they can in order to "acquire" your hard earned money. Your job is to demand the lowest possible rate you can get. Make no mistake, WWIII is well under way, and the battle is over money, YOUR money. Folks the rule of 72 and the astonishing ramifications of high interest rates explains; 1) Why there is an enormous conspiracy between CRA's and creditors to TRASH your score, so that the highest possible interest rates can be charged, yielding the highest possible profits for the creditors, (the CRA's customer base). B U T C H =====================
No wonder my scores are so artificially low. This is a racket. and I mean RICO not FICO. Marie ===================== What have I been saying about scoring and reporting!! LB 59
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop It is all a scam to keep you paying high interest rates. Becky ===================== Now" Where have I heard something like this before? LB 59 The scoring formula must be kept in the vault right along side the formula's for mass destruction. FICO is the formula for mass destruction of our finances.
There is nothing "Fair" about the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Credit Billing Act, or Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. David A. Szwak ===================== In other words these laws are really puppets controlled and or minupliated by the credit industy. LB 59
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop Oddly, there are not minimal standards and the CRAs in a "race to the bottom" to gather more and more data sources keep adding information which does not post easily. Consider the many and varied mixed file cases. These cases are admittedly [admitted by the CRAs] caused by inadequate ID information inputted by the furnisher of data. There is no check on the front end posting process to insure that header records contain the proper data fields completed [enough ID data to post]. The Metro 2 format was to cure only a few of the problems but continues to have deficiencies. Consider the continued "junk debt collector" reportings whereby they fail to report the true DLA or simply leave it blank and show the "open date" as the date they took possession/assignment, thereby furthering the reportings for 7 more years. 1681c says the CRA cannot report it for more than 7 years. The collector is duping the obvious deficiency. So, Metro 2 added a field for the name of the original creditor. Did that fix it? No. The original creditor name can be added in various ways [e.g., "Bank 1" or "Bank One" or "Bank One, Louisiana, NA", etc.] so that field cannot be a proper comparator to evaluate whether the new junk reporting is tied to an old Bank One reporting. Metro 2 did not mandate the reporting of the original creditor's subscriber number [under which they reported the original account] since this WOULD have been a proper comparator and allowed the CRA system to kick out a reporting by the junk collector which was older than 7 years. Further, the collector rarely [only if stupid] reports the original account number, etc. The Metro 2 standardized reporting format is as big a joke as the Metro 1. It is a facially pretty gesture to appease Congress and pretend that efforts are being made. I will try to keep posting info for you all to review. If there is a way for me to email you all briefs and outlines and articles and depo transcripts, etc., please tell me how and let's post them to a page on this site. I can share your link with others and create even more traffic here. David A. Szwak bjks1507@aol.com
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop thanks for your expert opinion Mr. Szwak! I hope you come and play with us more on this board. I know you're very busy, but we could always use your expert advice and i'm sure it wouldn't hurt having some knowledgeable clients with real cases that don't know where to turn. Thanks again.
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop Another little quirk to this system is that the CRA's charge creditors for a "pull" even if it is a "no hit" - so the pressure is on from the user end for very loose parameters, so they don't have to pay when they get nothing. As far as prices - I know in my industry the prices are much higher than 10 cents for a report - I don't know the details, but we are under the gun to get "identifying info" in depth so the company doesn't pay for "no hit" returns or bad returns. The price I hear from higher-ups is around $20 per person, for all info - including credit score, mvr, and CLUE. Of course, knowledgable customers, now, are very guarded about their info unless they have made the decision to buy. Then they get co-operative. I have my little tricks to fool the system until they are at that point in the process, but most agents don't know enough about the system to use any tricks. BTW these are not illegal tricks, just a way to make the computer wait until I am ready for it to pull credit, so correct identifiers are all in the app. For instance, I may be doing a quote for Jim Johnson, and he doesn't want to give his SSN up front (understandable), and it isn't until after he has his credit card out to pay, that he tells me he is a Jr, and that I shouldn't get him mixed up with his Dad who has a bad driving record and bad credit. Too late. His rate is twice as high as it would have been had I had correct identifiers in the beginning. Our app starts to pull the instant I "input" his last name in the correct field. My little trick fools the quote system into thinking that I am not talking to the actual applicant, but a 3rd party, so it doesn't pull until I "fix it" and let the system know it is no longer a 3rd party. But my point is that the companies that purchase these services put a lot of pressure on to make it fast and easy. Since they are the real customers, as far as the CRA's are concerned, they get what they want, even if incorrect info is the result.
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop Breeze, sounds like you work as an insurance agent. The ChoicePoint system is causing a lot of insurance denials due to mixed files and basic errors in public record readings and DMV readings. Maybe ChoicePoint is charging you all a lot more based on low volume of pulls. Or they have priced you higher due to the structure. The other things we see with insurers: [1] sending adverse action letters that fail to tell the real source of the consumer report causing adverse action [includes rejection, non-renewal or simply not getting the best possible quote]; [2] not sending adverse action letters at all; [3] violating ECOA and/or 1681m[a] in the adverse action process in various ways. Look at Braxton v. Farmers Insurance, ND Ala. [available on Lexis; I am co-counsel with Earl Underwood and Bruce Adams]. Class certified against Farmers. Up on a 23[f] permissive appeal to the 11th Circuit currently. Many other victims of this problem, not only via Farmers. You need to look at your credit reports from Trans Union, LLC [Chiago: www.transunion.com], Experian [Allen, Texas: www.experian.com], Equifax [Atlanta: www.equifax.com; some states operated via CSC, its largest affiliate bureau], and ChoicePoint [www.choicepoint.com; Equifax spin off; reports data on driving, personal, some other including criminal, but IS A CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCY per 1681a[f] and must comply with 1681g, etc.] Look at inquiry logs and see if insurers pulled any of your reports. If so, did you get insurance? Did you get the BEST POSSIBLE quote, rate and coverages? if not, that is adverse action by law and you are entitled to a federally require adverse action notice. David A. Szwak
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop Yes, I am an agent. Most people here know who I work for, but I would rather not have the name of the company in this thread. I will be glad to tell you off the board. I may be wrong about this, but it looks to me like the laws we follow are the state laws. On our intranet, these are the references provided for our guidance, re credit and everything else. However, we agents never even see the credit notifications - it is all behind the scenes stuff. We do always pre-notify (not required in all states), but from what I hear, there was a time when we didn't. My guess is that the notices are part of the service provided by Choicepoint. When it comes to credit, we see nothing. A lot of what I know I infer by putting 2 and 2 together, from my personal knowledge of the credit system, computers and software, and 18 years in the insurance industry. In states where the laws are complex, we don't pull credit - I had to laugh because we recently stopped using credit in GA. Reading the GA law, it basically said that insurers can't use credit to create "fictitious risk grouping, for the purpose of charging higher premiums..." Hmmm. So, they stopped using credit and just raised the rates in GA instead. Incidentally, I discovered by accident that young people (who normally have very high insurance rates) can actually get a very low rate (at least with my company) if they have good credit. I inadvertently pulled credit on a 19 year old - a feature of our software program, and my attempt to change "pages" prior to putting in the DOB, made the credit pre-notice question pop-up appear on my screen - not realizing that the young man was only 19 (we don't use credit under age 21), I asked and he said it was OK. The 19 year old male with a 2 year driving record went preferred!!!!! When I saw it, after I entered all the info and got the rate, I couldn't help myself, LOL - I said "your folks must have gotten you one of those teenage credit card deals...." He said, yes, I got one when I was 16, and they taught me about credit. How did you know that?" I told him that was why he got such a fantastic rate - financial responsibility (credit score) overrode all the other rating factors!!!
Re: My copy NOT like creditors' cop One other note on the mechanics of this - whoever sends those FCRA notices, the process is called "fulfillment" and it consists of sending a letter (in this case the FCRA notice) to printer/mailer machine, where the letter prints, is stuck into an envelope and postage applied, and then it goes out in the mail. If the machine is out of paper, postage, toner, etc, NO LETTER!!! But the system thinks the letter has been sent, and the computer record (we keep records of everything) shows that the letter was sent. But, no paper, no letter. No safeguard to force the system to send it again. On top of that, you should hear the calls that come in to the service area when people DO get the notice - they have no idea what it is, why they got it, or what to do. Every now and then, I get a mis-directed call about an FCRA notice - I try to tell them what to do, and they aren't interested. The average person has no clue what is going on. I can recall numerous occasions (looking back on my bad-credit years) when I should have received FCRA notices and didn't.
