http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/osbennett061907.pdf is a 40-page document of written testimony before the House Committee on Financial Services by Leonard A. Bennett, a consumer advocate attorney. It's long and depressing but at the same time, informative. Basically, what he says is that: - When a consumer requests investigation of a tradeline, all the CRA does is code the request and essentially send the creditor an e-mail asking if this is correct. (It's not really an e-mail, but it's close). The CRA doesn't really do anything more than ask the creditor. If the creditor says it's correct, then case closed. So, the next time your reinvestigation is dismissed, take comfort in the fact that even though they are not complying with the law, they are at least complying with their policy manuals. The other thing that got me was that the credit report you get from your free annual credit report is NOT the same one as a potential lender sees. That makes it difficult to verify the accuracy and correct any errors. But then investigating and correcting errors just cuts into their profit margin so why bother? Finally, the testimony stated that there are two types of investigation categories: VIPs and everyone else. If you're a person of some importance (e.g lawyer, politician, celebrity) there are actual American customer service agents that will handle your claim. If you're not one of those, your claim is outsourced to India, the Philippines, or Central America. Some kinda fun!
Thank you for that synopsis, that information is both interesting yet frustrating at the same time. Nice to have it spelled out that CRA's believe the creditors word is golden & it makes more sense as to why they refuse to delete inaccurate information. It just angers me that we, as consumers, have to fight so hard to have something report correctly on our own reports! I have thought that about what credit report lenders see. When I was apping for my mortgage our loan person sent me a copy of the credit report they received, it was the same yet different, this one seemed to have more detail to it that I hadn't seen on my paper credit reports I had requested. Of course, we are just consumers, what do we matter? Why should we see the same info our creditors do? Well bah, thats nice to know that VIP's get such preferential treatment. Just makes you feel warm all over eh? Maybye we should all get one of those cracker jack diplomas by mail. Thanks for sharing CC I think I'm mad enough at the CRA's to tackle my last 3 baddies now =))))) Tegleg
Remember that the information that is collected by the CRAs if collected for the BANKS and CREDITORS, NOT the consumer. Consequently, the Banks and Creditors get a lot more favorable attention than the consumers. We're just the sheep who need to be fleeced.
Tegleg, there are many different score models, and I'm sure each one has its own report. Besides, if your mortgage is more than a certain amount (I think it's $150K) they can get a full report. That will have things that have aged off, like old bankruptcies. And yes, they do reduce (at least most) disputes to a 2-character code. But they still have an obligation to investigate. And they still have a legal requirement to tell you who they contacted at the data furnisher when you ask.
I've never seen anyone produce a true description of procedures used to verify the accuracy of accounts. That would apply to suppling info as to who they contacted and when. All I've ever seen is the boilerplate responses to requests therefor. In discovery, it' a different tune of sorts.
