Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 08:38 pm  I recently was approved for a loan at a higher interest rate than expected. I had done all of my homework and expected a good rate. However, I was told I had a collection account on my credit report, reason for higher rate. I knew this was not true, because I had a report from all three bureaus, and this particular lender was NOT on any of them. I asked to see this so called entry on my report, and sure enough it WAS on one of the three. I am truly bewildered. Is it possible that the creditors receive a different report than the one we get when we order one ourselves? I heard that this is true at one point or another! For example, if I had an entry successfully removed from my report, or it was removed after the 7 year period, is it still visible to creditors?
|
| | Saturday, January 06, 2001 - 10:16 pm I've always been curious as to the differences between the consumer's version of the credit report and the one the lenders receive. It's bad enough that we don't get to see our credit score but to have a collection account on the lendor's report that isn't on the consumers?! That to me is outrageous. I would get a fresh copy of your credit report (consumer version) to make sure the collection account hasn't recently appeared there and then take the CRA to court. There is no way it is legal what they are doing to you.
|
| | Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 08:36 am Jim, This is the first time I've ever heard of someone actually being victimized by it, but there are conditional exemptions to the "Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports". I, myself, have denied (in mortgage app's) having filed a Chapter 13 in 1986, and never been called on it. You can see the exemptions in SubSection (b) of Section 605 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm I would fight it anyway, regardless of whether the lender is in compliance with the FCRA. I would make them show me how this is possible. good luck, dave PS - Christine, 'exemptions' should be added to your spell-check dictionary.
|
| | Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 10:55 am If the "consumer" reports were DIRECTLY from the bureaus, the only explanation is that the collection was added AFTER the Jim got his report. This is the kind of problem I have to SEE to believe. And Dave, I added "exemptions". Also, I don't think a collection is subject to the extended reporting as are bankruptcies.
|
| | Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 11:36 am I, too, would like to see this; since, if this were happening frequently, there would certainly be more postings about it on this board. The reality may be that the CRA's have never maintained the second set of files that would be required to facilitate this exemption. This is the only credible explanation that I can imagine. As for collections being included in the exempted cases, I've included Section 605(a)(4) and all of Subsection (b): § 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681c] (a) Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information: ************************************************* (4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years.(1) ************************************************ (b) Exempted cases. The provisions of subsection (a) of this section are not applicable in the case of any consumer credit report to be used in connection with (1) a credit transaction involving, or which may reasonably be expected to involve, a principal amount of $150,000 or more; (2) the underwriting of life insurance involving, or which may reasonably be expected to involve, a face amount of $150,000 or more; or (3) the employment of any individual at an annual salary which equals, or which may reasonably be expected to equal $75,000, or more.
|
| | Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 12:10 pm Although granted there are exemptions to the seven year limitation on reporting that is not likely to be the cause of what happened here. The negative information was likely added between the time he received his cleaned up report and he applied for credit. Chances are excellent that a request for a credit report from the agency that denied him credit will show the new collection notation added.
|
| | Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 03:33 pm I agree with Shylock. However, I'm really glad Dave brought that up. I think he also should have posted item # 5: "(5) Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years.1" I often hear as argument AGAINST bankruptcy that it can stay on your credit forever due to the exemptions. I hadn't realized that ALL derogatory data is exempt. I've never seen reporting after 7 years, so I started a new topic at Has anyone seen derogatory data show up on a credit report AFTER 7 years due to the EXEMPTIONS in the FCRA?
|
| | Sunday, January 07, 2001 - 03:41 pm Whose business is it to know about criminal records on a credit report?
|
| | Monday, January 08, 2001 - 04:04 am Some businesses do have a legitmate interest in whether or not an employee in sensititve postions have let's say a fraud conviction. I know that they pulled on on me for my current job. But I also agree that this doesn't belong in a credit report because at least in NY, I can get a document from my local sheriff's dept, that says you have no convictions in the computer.
|
| | Monday, January 08, 2001 - 07:10 am I think that it is another way to punish people in effect. I am guessing some sort of criminal conviction/arrest is grounds for immediate denial for jobs/credit. If you served your time, you should not be relegated to menial jobs that don't do a credit check or not being able to obtain any credit because of that conviction. That's just my 2 cents worth.
|
| | Monday, January 08, 2001 - 09:35 am It's called a CREDIT report, not crime report. It surprises me that apparently all my clients (in California) were never convicted of anything?
|
| | Monday, January 08, 2001 - 10:09 am Geez. Don't tell me arrests WITHOUT convictions show up. Good grief. I guess I shouldn't be surprised but that is surely screwing up people's lives. It seems to me to be another way to segment people into groups so the "undesirables" are kept out of opportunities they would otherwise be entitled too.
|
| | Monday, January 08, 2001 - 10:23 am I think I posted once that arrests WITHOUT conviction can sure make life difficult if you're trying to leave the US. Apparently the US government gives Canada (and who knows who else?) full access to US records. In my case my finger printing for my Cal broker's license and notary public caused some tense moments because California reports those finger printings the same as finger printings for arrests.
|
| | Monday, January 08, 2001 - 01:06 pm and vice versa: the INS has full knowledge of Canadian based records. However, even minor convictions can be a pain in the butt, even done as a minor over 20 years ago.... HOWEVER, in Canada here we do NOT have criminal records mixed up in the CRA's reports. This discriminatory nonsense, along with the use of credit reports in UNRELATED events like job promotions/applications, insurance and renting essential accomodation, definitely needs to be cleaned up in any future credit reporting reform bills!
|
| | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 04:21 am As much as you don't like it, there are still valid reasons such as SEC regulations on who can be hired into sensitive positions. I do agree that that information is and should be available through other means than a CRA. However, If a person has spent 15 of the last 20 years in jail on 6 different crimes. I would have to think this person does have a higher probability of defaulting on his loans and therefore does deserve a lower FICO score.
|
| | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 12:30 pm I didn't know that criminal convictions effect the credit scores. What reason would one get?
|
| | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 04:17 am I am sure that conviction doesn't directly affect your scores. But in all reality they should. If you are in jail more than not i'd venture to guess that you have a statisically higher chance of not paying your bills.
|
| | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 10:50 am I'd venture to say that there is a statistically higher chance of not paying your bills when you got cancer, high blood pressure, 10 kids, low income ... There are LOAN APPLICATIONS to collect info, and then there are CREDIT reports.
|
| | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 06:06 pm It's been awhile since I've seen a loan application that asked if a person has cancer, high blood pressure or ten kids.
|
| | Friday, January 12, 2001 - 05:06 pm I have ONE kid and high blood pressure for crying out loud! Corporate behavior of tightening its collective A**ES in search of the ever decreasing risk is bound to haunt them when they have constipated their entire customer base! This would do more damage to the economy in terms of hyper-inflation that it would be scary. Reasonableness and accountability are what should prevail.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |