RESELLERS (PG et al) feet to fire !

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by crofttk, Aug 7, 2003.

  1. crofttk

    crofttk Well-Known Member

    Are you one of those whose Privacy Guard (or other reseller) report contradicts what's in any of your files direct from the CRA ? If so, and it pisses you off, help may be on the way !

    I have no significant problems in comparison with mine. However, there appears to be a noticeable number of people who do have significant problems matching up to the 3 CRAs reports.

    The main difference is that the reports don't have the same format so, in some sense, PG, et al are "fitting square pegs into round holes".

    What's really bad though, is that the differences could be misleading to a lender if they pull a tri-merge report and things are off. At this point, I am trying to find out if PG actually resells to third parties and is, hence, causing damage in some cases and should be held accountable.

    What you may be interested to know is that the Fair and Accurate Credit Reporting Act (FACTA - H.R. 2622) which is in the House as of this writing may well apply significant pressure on resellers to get this stuff right !

    Here's why:

    H.R. 2622 (FACTA) was introduced to the House of Representatives by Rep. Jim Bachus on 6/26/03. You can see the text as it was introduced at, or here, you can track the status of HR 2622 and follow a link to the text:

    Note Section 302, which says that FCRA 611 will now allow you to dispute through resellers.

    The bill, as introduced, was passed on to the House Committee on Financial Services and then on to the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit. The Subcommittee then marked it up and sent it back to the Committee on 7/16/03. The Committee then marked it up yet again on 7/25/03 and ordered it to be reported to the House.

    There was a markup dated 7/18/03 that appeared BRIEFLY at the Committee website that I managed to download. Then it disappeared ! So, although I have what appears to be the Subcommittee markup, I haven't seen what was presumably changed by the Committee on 7/25/03.

    ANYWAYS.... If you're interested in this issue, here is my reconstruction of how that latest markup would have Section 611 of FCRA read, with changes highlighted:
    Doesn't look to shabby to me.

    Any thoughts ?

    One thing that occurs to me is that it begs the question of: Is there or will there be some mechanism by which we are provided access to ALL of the reports that resellers sell to lenders ?
  2. Hedwig

    Hedwig Well-Known Member

    I wonder if it disappeared because they took a lot of it out, or if they just didn't want us to see it?

    Maybe they're afraid if we see it we'll inundate them with letters. Just what we talked about in another thread.
  3. crofttk

    crofttk Well-Known Member

    Yep. Same here. It could just be a CYA move. Maybe they felt posting it in the first place was a mistake until they reported out to the House or maybe they thought, "ooops, the Full Committee marked it up too".

    You can bet I'm real curious as to what they report out and what the full Committee did with it !
  4. crofttk

    crofttk Well-Known Member

    The FACT Act (H.R. 2622) passed the House by a vote of 392-30 on 9/10/03.

    Here's a press release from the House Committee on Financial Services:

    Here's House Report No. 108-263 reporting out to the House on the FACT Act as Amended in Committee and Subcommittee:

    You might oughta read through the FACT Act text. It may get you a head start on how the new FCRA (your "bible") will read !

Share This Page