The other side of the street...

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by bugman, Sep 5, 2003.

  1. bugman

    bugman Well-Known Member

    We all know consumers sue CRA's for inaccurate information.

    On the flip side, do OC's sue the CRA's?

    For example, If a bank uses the CRA's info to grant credit to a consumer, then the bank later finds out the CRA removed extremely negative info (that was true) from that consumers report. The bank claims had the accurate negative info been on the report they would have rejected that consumer.



    I ask because I think this may be a reason why CRA's can be so stubborn at times.

    Anyone know of any OC v. CRA lawsuits like this?

    Thanks

    Fweem!
     
  2. Flyingifr

    Flyingifr Well-Known Member

    I would consider such a suit to be highly unlikely for several reasons.

    1: The lender needs the CRA a lot more than the CRA needs any particular lender. There are, at most, 5 CRA's. There are thousands of lenders. If a lender sued a CRA, the CRA would probably stop doing business with that lender. Since all CRA's delete items (sometimes they have to be prodded with a lawsuit to actually DO it) it wouldn't be long before the lender was cut off from ALL credit reports. How would they base the lending decision then? Flip of a coin? That may be more accurate and fairer, but I don't think they will do it.

    2: Since no CRA claims to have a consumer's complete credit history, where is the grounds for action? No warranty of completeness was made. Anything that was deleted from a CRA file was deleted for a reason - and that reason probably has to do with compliance with FCRA.

    3: If the derog line(s) was/were deleted because the OC on that line failed to verify, then the CRA deleted in compliance with law. Compliance with law, unless you are violating some OTHER law, is not actionable.

    Actually, I would think the lender in your situation might have a stronger casee against the OC of the trade line that was deleted, the failure to verify constituting negligence of ordinary business practice that caused the subsequent lender harm under the "all but one" rule (the TL that was deleted would have induced us NOT to lend).

    The CA's are so stubborn because their thinking goes something like this: "You already got something of value in this transaction - the money you borrowed and the goods/services that money purchased. Why should you get anything ELSE of value?" (Sassy, this mentality is rampant on the Collection Industry Web Site Message Boards, located at www.collectionindustry.com ).
     
  3. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

    Bump for Anyone know of any OC v. CRA lawsuits like this?

    Thanks

    Fweem!
     
  4. bugman

    bugman Well-Known Member

    point well taken

    "a reason" OC and CRA contract required here. how bout if the CRA was just plain incompetent and didnt investigate! (they always invesitgate right?)
    The example above shows the typical situation whereby they never even investigated, if the consumer can prove this (ie, letter from OC) the OC would have some good evidence against the CRA

    excellent point, still ends in OC v. CRA
    EDIT - OC v. OC (dependant on the OC/CRA contract)


    I think we need the OC to CRA's contract to fully understand the relationship.

    Id love to read how the CRA indemnifies itself!


    If we had an actual suit it would speak volumes of this relationship between the 2 (Im my opinion, a potentially hostile one)

    additional thoughts or references



    fweem!
     
  5. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    That's a good question Bugman.

    As far as I know there's no lawsuits we can look at, but it is an issue that the OC's/CRA's are aware of.

    They are relied upon to provide data which is accurate, not only by consumers but lenders too.

    They are especially cognesent that accurate negative data may prevent a lender from loaning money to a bad risk.

    So yes, there IS a balance in here.

    :)
     
  6. Nestea

    Nestea Well-Known Member

    so can I expect to see HouseHold Bank Vs. Equifax?



    :)
     
  7. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    That would be fun wouldn't it? lol


    But nopie, don't think so.

    :)
     
  8. crowmom

    crowmom Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: The other side of the street...

    Wow. the info on those boards is priceless. I feel like I'm inside the mind of my enemy now. Knowing what they think and how they feel can only help people like us over here, heh.
     
  9. jlynn

    jlynn Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: The other side of the street...

    Can I be on the jury?
     
  10. sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: The other side of the street...

    Flying: The CA's are so stubborn because their thinking goes something like this: "You already got something of value in this transaction - the money you borrowed and the goods/services that money purchased. Why should you get anything ELSE of value?" (Sassy, this mentality is rampant on the Collection Industry Web Site Message Boards, located at www.collectionindustry.com ).

    Good Lord, Flying,

    I wish you and RichGuy would give it up.

    I understand the mentality, ONLY disagreed with your FACTUAL editorialized postings where their actions are bound by laws that regulate their business. The actions were illegal -- was the point.

    Thinking though, isn't illegal nor is their perception, hmmmmm, nor is being stupid.

    They are business people and that's how they understand and relate the furnishing requirements to their business. I understand, from their side of the fence, WHY they believe reporting and continued reporting should be a requirement and/or why they believe there shouldn't be deletions.

    God forbid, reporting ever should become mandatory.

    I don't disagree with you, I usually don't, it was only the accuracy I had an issue with, as it related to the laws that bind their profession and what you were promoting as legitimate day-to-day operations.

    That's a common perception, not just within the collection industry, within our court rooms too!!!

    I'll excuse that the CA illegally smacked you upside the head because he/she wouldn't have smacked you at all had you paid your debt.

    Sassy
     
  11. sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: The other side of the street...

    Bugman: For example, If a bank uses the CRA's info to grant credit to a consumer, then the bank later finds out the CRA removed extremely negative info (that was true) from that consumers report. The bank claims had the accurate negative info been on the report they would have rejected that consumer.

    Accurate negative information can be removed if it isn't verifiable.

    This scenario speaks to mandated reporting.

    Creditors due just what you have proposed all the time, that's why they are permitted a purpose for account reviews AND WHY they then have the option of closing your account.

    You can be given credit based on whatever factors they decide; you can be denied credit based on whatever factors they decide; and your credit can be revoked too based on whatever factors they decide, if any, they don't need a reason.

    Sassy
     
  12. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: The other side of the street...

    1* he/she wouldn't have smacked you at all had you paid your debt.
    Sassy
    =================
    1*Not true happens all the time.
     
  13. Flyingifr

    Flyingifr Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: The other side of the street...



    And the point you fail (or refuse) to acknowledge is that I was not addressing the LEGALITY of the actions, only the THOUGHT PROCESSES behind them. The legality of the actions was YOUR point, not mine or my purpose.

    No CA ever smacked me upsidre the head or anywhere else. The words attributed to me in the post you cite are NOT MINE, and I even gave the link to where they are. It's ba enough I have to prove that I am the author of words I DID write, please don't attribute to me thoughts or words that I state are not mine and give citation to their source.
     
  14. sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: The other side of the street...

    Alright Flying,

    So you baited me and I fell for it hook, line and sinker believing you were communicating or trying to.

    You're obviously not interested in letting it go -- so I will.

    You better go read that other thread again, I never asked whether you authored your editorials or not, I don't care -- it is irrelevant to whether or not the substance was accurate or inaccurate. They were factually inaccurate and remain so.

    Flying: "The CA's are so stubborn because their thinking goes something like this: "You already got something of value in this transaction - the money you borrowed and the goods/services that money purchased. Why should you get anything ELSE of value?" (Sassy, this mentality is rampant on the Collection Industry Web Site Message Boards, located at www.collectionindustry.com )."

    I didn't attribute it to you, I know where it comes from. You need to do better with your sources though, a link to a homepage doesn't do anyone much good.

    Type to yourself, I'll not respond, it's better than ignore. Embrace your inner 2-year old self, your emotional growth got stunted there.

    Don't include my name in your posts as you did above again -- that's provoking and stirring. You be responsible for your typing, that is YOUR monkey and I'll not be taking it.

    LBrown, Nodding, I know it happens all the time, that is just what I was saying, that is a common perception, not only of CA's but of our courts too!

    Sassy
     

Share This Page