Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Friday, February 04, 2000 - 02:09 pm  The "Washington Post" topic seems to have moved off topic, but I wanted to address an issue that came about from it. Hence ... :) I rarely take the side of defending the CRA's. But after some (off site) reading today, a big question comes to mind: Why is everybody putting so much emphasis on how rotten the CRA's are and how uncooperative they are when, in my personal opinion and based on my experiences, the vast majority of the issues are created by the subscribers (the creditors that report the data) and not by the CRA's? Sure, no system is 100% accurate and the CRA's are gonna have problems, but when the subscribers are reporting erroneous and inaccurate information, how are the CRA's supposed to handle this? The responsibility of the CRA is, in a nutshell, to warehouse data collected from the subscribers and to give it out when necessary. It is not their responsibility to proactively investigate each and every single item added/edited/deleted from the records, unless an item is disputed. The system has it's problems, but those problems are compounded a thousand-fold (or more) because subscribers report erroneous information AND their internal methods of tracking consumer account data is so bad that they can't verify information when it IS disputed by their own customers! If a subscriber reports bad data, how the heck does the CRA know it's not accurate? Does everybody think that the CRA should be responsible for proactively verifying every bit that comes across the wire? Heck, credit reports would cost 10 times as much due to the burden of paying the CRA's to perform activities that are the responsibility of the subscriber. And another point: if the CRA made a decision (on their own) to remove something that they deemed erroneous, and it turned out to be someone had stolen your identity, everybody would be bitching because the CRA didn't KEEP the information so that you, viewing your report, would notice it. I would be willing to bet that 3/4's of the people complaining about how horrible the CRA's are, are people with accurate, negative information on their reports, and they are just pissed because they can't manipulate the system in order to get it off. Sure, some data gets mixed up once it a while, but the majority of the data that is incorrect is incorrect because the subscribers reported it that way. Tougher legislation needs to be passed that puts the burden of keeping credit files accurate on the subscribers and let the CRA's handle problems that they cause. Every Tom, Dick and Harry creditor or collection agency knows they can slam erroneous data on your report and then the consumer and the CRA have to go through the trouble and expense of contacting the jerks that provided the bad data in the first place, just to get it fixed. I say, start slamming the subscribers (in the pocketbook) when things get reported wrong. The burden of maintaining accurate data, in compliance with the laws, should fall on the shoulders of the subscribers, not the CRA's. Again, I rarely defend the CRA's, but I think it's worth some discussion (and we need a new topic, too!) :)
|
| | Friday, February 04, 2000 - 03:52 pm Actually, I have great credit and have had incorrect data appear on my report. I must say that I disagree with what your sumation. My biggest issue is that a consumer is responsible for "proving" their case when incorrect information is found. To do so, one must shell out the money ($8.50) to receive their report (unless they have been denied credit) and spend trying to contact the CRA to dispute the information. Constant busy signals and an inability to speak to a human only complicates matters. If one is denied credit because of erroneous information the inquiry is still on the report for 2 years which also looks bad. I do believe that both CRAs and their subscribers have a huge responsibility to report accurate information because they are dealing with someones life. The last time I ordered all three reports (just last month) they were each different and there were mistakes on both Experian and Equifax which I have had spend time and money to correct. My feeling is this, they are dealing with my life and I should be entiled to view the information in my report free of charge (some states have already implemented free reports once per year), in addition, I should be notified when something damaging is reported to a CRA because it could keep me from getting a job, mortgage, etc. My solution, one agency only and the consumer should be able to obtain their information free of charge. Just my two cents.
|
| | Friday, February 04, 2000 - 08:20 pm RCB, I agree with you that when creditors report false, negative information, they should be slammed in the pocketbook. They should be hit with penalties they can actually feel. However, I disagree that the credit reporting agencies should be exempt from the burden of accurate credit reporting. We didn't tell them to go into the credit reporting business. They made the choice on their own to compile our personal information [without our consent] and to sell it for profit, thus creating a multi billion dollar enterprise for themselves. The very least they could do is report information that is correct and not charge us just to find out what they are saying about us. People are held accountable for what they say, even if it is something they heard from someone else. The credit reporting agencies are not entitled to any special exemptions from that accountability. They made the bed, so they have to sleep in it [and we, as consumers, should not have to sleep on the_______]. If I want an inaccurate piece of information corrected on "my" credit report, I have to prove that it is inaccurate [because the CRA's believe that the customer is always right, and I am not their customer-- I am the product they are selling!] It is the CRA's responsibility to investigate consumer disputes, but they don't ask the creditors to provide any real proof. They just make a quick call or pop a ready made form into their fax machine to the company that reported the false information, and a brain dead employee from that company replies, "Yeah, it's right." The CRA accepts the lame response as Gospel. Thus begins the slave labor described by Christine: The consumer is forced to spend his/her free time to go digging up canceled checks and other documented proof, while those making all the money from the credit reporting system do practically nothing on behalf of the consumer [the consumer= the product they are selling]. RCB, in earlier posts, you stated that consumers need to be more proactive about the contents of their credit reports. In this post, you say that the credit reporting agencies should not have to be proactive regarding the information they sell. Why not? They are the ones making all of the money from this credit reporting scheme, not us. It should be their responsibility to "proactively investigate each and every single item added/ edited/ deleted from the records", regardless of whether or not the item is disputed. They chose to create what has become a multi billion dollar enterprise by maintaining files on us [without our consent]-- It most certainly is their responsibility to make sure that the information is accurate! If I were a private investigator and told lies about you to the person who hired me, would you accept it if I told you that all I did was report what I heard, so I am not responsible for the harm those lies caused you? It's time for all these fat cats to stop passing the buck. They are ALL responsible and should ALL be held accountable for their actions. The shell game they are playing is a crock, and everyone with a three digit IQ can see right through it.
|
| | Saturday, February 05, 2000 - 04:04 am Yeah, what Barbara said. She hit the nail squarely on the head. If the credit bureaus start fining the reporters, the offending reporters are likely stop reporting altogether. I say so be it. There are so many of them, that it will make them wake up one day with a world with a handful of reporters and incomplete, unreliable reports. But that is an unlikely scenario, given their incestuous relationship. The bureaus need the data, but unfortunately, they take it dirty, as well a clean. What's the solution? More public education, exposure of the problem (creditaccuracy.com (creditscoring.com was only Part One)), and lawsuits.
|
| | Saturday, February 05, 2000 - 05:41 am Your points are all well taken. Actually, I agree to a high degree with most of them. I was just pointing out that the subscribers never seem to taken the heat for the problems that they caused. Anonymous: you never stated what kind of 'incorrect data' you experienced. What is soley attributable to the CRA (not your account), or was it inaccurate data reported by the creditor? I was specific about the difference when mentioning the two and who should be responsible. If one is denied credit because of erroneous information the inquiry is still on the report for 2 years which also looks bad. The CRA's will send, free of charge, another report to any creditor who denied you within the past 60 days, after the incorrect data has been changed. It states so in your dispute results. Constant busy signals and an inability to speak to a human only complicates matters I've spent 2.5 years cleaning/repairing my credit. Probably a total of 15 or more items at each bureau. I have ALWAYS spoke to a person. I have made 100 or more phone calls to them and remember only 2 or 3 times getting a busy signal. It's all in the way you speak to them and how professional you present yourself. Bitching and swearing, as many people do, at a customer service rep gets you nowhere. Viewing your report free of charge and whenever you want costs money. Alot of money. Who ends up paying for it? You do. The cost would get passed on to the consumer when he/she applied for a credit card, loan or mortgage. One agency? That would be a monopoly, illegal and would cause more problems than we have now. Barbara: Yes, very good points. Again, I don't disagree. But more burden of accuracy needs to be placed on the subscribers. Nothing seems to happen to them when, all the while, you and I and the CRA's are spending time, money and effort to correct THIER screw ups. RCB, in earlier posts, you stated that consumers need to be more proactive about the contents of their credit reports. In this post, you say that the credit reporting agencies should not have to be proactive regarding the information they sell. Why not? How, may I ask, is the CRA supposed to tell the difference between accurate data and inaccurate data when the verification source is the idiot company that reported it in the first place? Who do they call to find out your Sears charge really didn't get paid late 3 months ago? Hell, they'd call SEARS! Again, how would they differenciate incorrect data from correct data without YOU telling them it was incorrect when the source of the incorrect data is the source for verifying it (the creditor)? That is the basis of my arguement - the subscribers are causing the problem and there is no 'third verification source' for data reported to the bureaus other than YOU. If I were a private investigator and told lies about you to the person who hired me, would you accept it if I told you that all I did was report what I heard, so I am not responsible for the harm those lies caused you? The only thing wrong with your analogy is that the person who's being told the lies is the SAME person who supplied the lies in the first place. Greg: If the credit bureaus start fining the reporters, the offending reporters are likely stop reporting altogether. Absolutely my point!! If the CRA's back-charged or fined the subscribers, then the data reported would have a much better chance of being correct in the first place, and the troubles and expense of verification would be between the two of them and we'd all have alot less headaches! The bureaus need the data, but unfortunately, they take it dirty, as well a clean. Again, please, what's the solution when the source of the erroneous data is the same source for verification? How do the CRA's tell the difference? What's the solution? More public education, exposure of the problem (creditaccuracy.com (creditscoring.com was only Part One)), and lawsuits. Absolutely correct. And yet another nail on the head! Everyone's opinions & comments are appreciated and respected.
|
| | Saturday, February 05, 2000 - 06:01 am Most of the negative information the repositories store is accurate. We know this because Fair Isaac did that whole scoring, modeling, linear regression thing and reported delinquencies do have a very large correlation to a person's future performance. Unfortunately some of it is inaccurate. Now I imagine that if no one was permitted to dispute anything the credit reporting agencies would establish a "cycle-check" system where they'd randomly select a few files a month and have people check them and sooner or later everyone's file would get checked. That's not how it works, though. Instead the people who scream the loudest/write most often are the ones whose report gets checked. Those same checked items get rechecked and rechecked and rechecked each time the person writes. That's why we get people on here who say things like, "I just went to apply for a mortgage and wouldn't you know it my sister's repossession is on my credit profile and my score is 545 -- how do I get this fixed in the next 24 hours so I can get my mortgage?" NEWS FLASH -- you can't get your profile fixed in 24 hours. Of course part of the reason for that is because there's a lot of people out there disputing accurate negative information every month in an effort to force deletion. Yes it's illegal but let's be serious -- does anyone out there know someone who's doing time for disputing their credit profile? I thought not. Yet those people who dispute accurate information multiple times are the very root cause of why consumers call up and get busy signals or can't get their inaccurate information removed within a very short period of time.
|
| | Saturday, February 05, 2000 - 06:18 am Woah there, RCB -- that "creditor will send up an updated credit profile" thing is worthless. Back in September a collection agency known as MKM Acquisitions, LLC placed a collection notice on my Trans Union profile. The debt was from 4/1992 on a Bank of America account I allegedly had overdrawn. They wanted about $200. In November I applied with Aspire Visa, they pulled my Trans Union and turned me down because (among other things) the time of my last collection was too recent (or unknown). So I requested my Trans Union report and discovered the offending item. To make a long story short I got it in writing from MKM the original charge off date, forwarded that to Trans Union along with a dispute and the collection item disappeared. Then I called up Trans Union wanting my updated credit profile sent out. They said fine. Then I said I wanted it to go out with an updated score. BALK! I got transferred around through 4 different people until I hit a supervisor who assured me that 1) Aspire had scoring software; 2) They'd get updated raw data; and 3) They'd be able to recalculate my score and underwrite me properly. Two weeks later I called Aspire to see how it was going. They assured me I'd get something in the mail -- and I did. Another denial letter, exactly the same as the first with exactly the same reasons for the denial. So I call Trans Union back up and the lady on the phone asks why I don't just re-apply with Aspire (generating more revenue for Trans Union, no doubt -- why doesn't she just kiss my ass?). I told her to delete the Aspire inquiry off my profile and I would. TILT! She was not about to do any such thing. So, basically, that "send out a corrected profile" is a waste of time.
|
| | Saturday, February 05, 2000 - 10:27 am Sean: Then either (a) the creditor said "Screw Sean, we don't care if he's fixed it or not, he's probably trying to screw the system" or (b) the MKM issue was not the ONLY reason for denial. I never stated that it would reverse anything. Just that the CRA would do it. You're probably right. It's worthless when the creditor knows you only by a score that he's not willing to try to regenerate without pulling your profile again.
|
| | Saturday, February 05, 2000 - 02:44 pm Well, my Trans Union credit profile contained (at the time Aspire pulled it) three collection accounts. Two paid from 8/93 (inaccurate but credit grantor verifies) and the MKM showing 9/99 (now deleted). The number one reason I didn't score higher was that my collection was "too recent" (they use their own proprietary scoring system). I certainly hope an 8/93 paid collection isn't too recent! Furthermore I'd like to point out that the credit bureau isn't required to retransmit your credit profile. Read the FCRA 611(d): "(d) Notification of deletion of disputed information. Following any deletion of information which is found to be inaccurate or whose accuracy can no longer be verified or any notation as to disputed information, the consumer reporting agency shall, at the request of the consumer, furnish notification that the item has been deleted or the statement, codification or summary pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) of this section to any person specifically designated by the consumer who has within two years prior thereto received a consumer report for employment purposes, or within six months prior thereto received a consumer report for any other purpose, which contained the deleted or disputed information." How do I know that Trans Union retransmitted my profile? How do I know that they'd be able to match up the information from my retransmitted profile with information from my application? How do I know they even bothered? Who do I get mad at? I have no idea, but this section of the FCRA is pointless since the advent of credit scoring.
|
| | Saturday, February 05, 2000 - 02:52 pm RCB wrote: "If a subcriber reports bad data, how the heck does the CRA know it's not accurate?" The CRA's should require solid proof from their subscribers before reporting any negative information and should not simply accept the subscriber's word for it. The consumer should receive a copy of such proof and should be given the opportunity to dispute the information before it is entered into the credit file. Enough of this "guilty until proven innocent" credit reporting system. That's not the way justice is supposed to work. Yes, this would cost the CRA's more money, but that is too bad. No one forced them to create a multi billion dollar industry from selling our personal information without our consent. It is their responsibility to solve the problem of inaccurate credit reporting. That's what they get paid for. If they can't figure out how to run their business in a competent manner, then they should shut down. I agree that the subscribers [furnishers of information] should be held accountable for false negative information, but I still think that the CRA's should be held equally accountable. RCB, If there were only one creditor in the world, then my analogy would be flawed. However, in most cases, the company that is being told the lies is not the same as the company that told the lies. If the ABC Company provides false negative information to a CRA, and the CRA gives the false information to the XYZ Company, then the CRA should be held accountable together with the ABC Company. The CRA's will not back-charge or fine their subscribers. They will not cancel the accounts of subscribers that generate an inordinate number of consumer disputes. They will not require their subscibers to provide real proof of the information they submit. In other words, they will not [voluntarily] do what it takes to ensure that the information they sell is accurate. Why won't they? Greg answered this question perfectly. RCB, I'm glad that you have had an easy time getting the CRA's to remove inaccurate info from "your" credit report. I don't think that's the case for most people [I reached this conclusion based on the e-mails I receive, comments on this and other forums, on my own experience, and the experiences of friends and family]. Sean, I think the argument that there are so many consumers out there trying to have accurate information removed from "their" credit files is just a bit too convenient. That is not an acceptable excuse to assume that all consumers are morons and liars. It is not an acceptable excuse to refuse to remove negative information that is inaccurate. It is not an acceptable excuse to stonewall consumers with busy signals and recorded messages that say "Call back later, we're too busy to talk to you now." Sean, you wrote: "Most of the negative information the repositories store is accurate." How did you arrive at this conclusion?
|
| | Saturday, February 05, 2000 - 04:31 pm Barbara: Credit repositories are a benefit to society and provide a valuable service to millions of consumers who may never directly come into contact with them. There are places you can go to get loans without a credit check. "Payday advance loans" are very common in my area. The interest rates start at about 260% and go up from there. That is what all lending of money would be like without a credit reporting system. Now our credit reporting system isn't perfect. But the solution is not to ban credit reporting or to tie it down with so many restrictions that it can't do what the American people need -- to filter out at least some of the bad risks. Your system of absolute proof, prior notification to consumer, chance to dispute before it is entered into your credit profile is absurd. If such a system was ever mandated interest rates would skyrocket as people blocked reporting of bad information about themselves. Now if you said something like, "A credit bureau should be required to delete or suppress the disputed information immediately upon receipt of a dispute until such time as they have verified the truth of that information" I could maybe see your point...but I can't hang with your extreme ideas.
|
| | Saturday, February 05, 2000 - 07:00 pm Barbara: You still haven't answered the question. How are they to verify it? Can you expound on the definition of 'solid proof'? Do you expect every creditor to send a copy of customer's monthly statement not only to their customer but to the CRA's as well, and then maybe expect the CRA to somehow magically verify every late or missed payment? Again, WHO is the source for verification of what a creditor is reporting if the original source is the creditor himself? Enough of this "guilty until proven innocent" credit reporting system. That's not the way justice is supposed to work Justice is a right, not a priviledge. The extension of credit, on the other hand, is a priviledge and not a right. Nobody "owes" it to you. The CRA's will not back-charge or fine their subscribers Then a third party or the government should. No conflict of interest then. RCB, I'm glad that you have had an easy time getting the CRA's to remove inaccurate info from "your" credit report. Although the statement you're referring to indicates my personal files were my source, I have stated many times on this board that I have spent many hours, days, weeks and months assisting others. I've rarely experienced busy signals or the failure to remove inaccurate information. It is not an acceptable excuse to refuse to remove negative information that is inaccurate. Again, how do the CRA's verify the accuracy?
|
| | Saturday, February 05, 2000 - 09:30 pm rcb: I DON'T want to hear about YOUR experiences with the CRAs or anyone else. I simply couldn't care less. And no, I also DON'T want to hear from the millions of people who also were able to get through. I DON'T CARE!! Unless of course you're willing to PAY up and reimburse me for the several thousand dollars Experian's busy signals cost me last winter. And what happened to your promise to go to YOUR forum?
|
| | Saturday, February 05, 2000 - 10:58 pm Sean: I never said that credit reporting should be banned, but I do think it should be more strongly regulated. I said that it is the responsibility of the CRA's to make sure that their information is accurate. I also said that consumers should not have to pay to see what's on "their" credit reports. There is a difference between reforming something and banning it altogether. The system of absolute proof I described would not result in the elimination of reporting accurate negative information. The CRA's should not be permitted to report anything unless they can back up with evidence. "Innocent until proven guilty"-- isn't that the way it's supposed to be? Borrowing and lending existed before the advent of credit reporting and scoring, and interest rates were not 260%-- they were lower than they are now. Usury used to be illegal, but not anymore! I don't feel inclined to send a "thank you" note to the CRA's for the "valuable service" they provide to "the American people". [If I were to send them a note, the first word would not be "thank".] I guess everybody has their own concept of what constitutes an extreme idea. For example, I consider it extreme when consumers make excuses for the credit bureaus and truly believe that they [the credit bureaus] are doing us a favor. The CRA's business and their profits are based upon selling our personal information without our consent. If I am an "extremist" for asking that they prove the accuracy of the information they report, and if I am an "extremist" because I don't think we should have to pay to find out what they are saying about us, then call me an "extremist". I welcome the label and I'll wear it with pride!
|
| | Sunday, February 06, 2000 - 01:00 am Barbara: You talk of "innocent until proven guilty" -- I completely disagree! We're not talking about someone going to prison here, we're talking about the extension of credit. You speak a lot about proof yet you don't say exactly how a creditor is supposed to prove that a payor didn't send a payment. Would you please outline exactly how a creditor should prove that? On the other hand the payor will find proof to be comparitively more easy. (S)He merely shows a cancelled check. It is much harder to prove that an event didn't happen than to prove that it did. Furthermore I totally reject your argument that CRAs are selling "[y]our personal information without [y]our consent." They are selling the information of their subscribers (Citibank, Bank of America, First USA, etc). You have very little to do with this equation. Do you want to improve the accuracy of credit reports while improving the service they provide to consumers? That can be easily done. Just have the credit repositories provide the US Justice Department a list of their worst 3 names of people who repeatedly disputed accurate information. Out of the 3-9 names submitted (allowing for some overlap) one person should be selected for prosecution. This person will be presumed innocent and given a fair, jury trial. And if this person is found guilty of disputing accurate information they should be publicly executed. I can guarantee you it won't take more than one or two executions before the repositories will find themselves processing far less disputes of accurate, negative information. Busy signals will suddenly disappear, disputes will be processed much faster and consumers will be much happier with the system.
|
| | Sunday, February 06, 2000 - 07:48 am Sean I STRONGLY disagree with you. Who's to say I should be put in credit prison for 7 years because I had an illness. Your report kind of sucks. Mine? Flawless. How? By wheeling and dealing and using the FCRA to my atvantage. Ever hear of asserting claims and defenses (TILA)? I got an account removed. I got EVERY negative item removed. Who's to say that at 6 years and 364 days I'm a terrible risk and at 7 years and 1 day everythings okay now? These people routinely break the law without fear of consequence-----only on occasion. Collectors break the law EVERY day by buying old debts, falsly redating, illegally reporting the debt and illegally making an inquiry. I bet you I get 10 pre-approved credit offers per week. 99.99% go in the garbage because I'm smart enough not to get myself into a potential bankruptcy situation. What about the others? The whole system sucks and it all begins with creditors greed for profit. And when something doesn't go their way they go crying to Washington with bucket fulls of cash. LMAO
|
| | Sunday, February 06, 2000 - 08:19 am rcb: I DON'T want to hear about YOUR experiences with the CRAs or anyone else. I simply couldn't care less. And no, I also DON'T want to hear from the millions of people who also were able to get through. I DON'T CARE!! Holy crap. Who the heck pissed in your breakfast cereal? What was that all about? I started a topic that generated a good amount of healthy conversation, and you go off on me like I'm doing something other than creating mature, meaningful and thoughtful conversation. What was that outburst all for? If you don't want to hear about other's experiences with the CRA's, then what is the point of the forum? Barbara, Sean, Greg, Anonymous: Did I offend any of you? Did I say something that warranted that type of response? Did I not specifically state that I agreed with what most everybody said? Gheesh, Christine. I'm sorry that my life isn't filled with as much hate and bad experiences with the CRA's as your's is. I don't know what to say. As for my own forums, the BCCIC is almost ready. I've got a couple of weeks before I feel the content is ready (it's not just a forums site) and I have to get my registration back for the forums software (need it for the search/new messages capabilities). But if anybody is willing to start some conversations going in the forums area, the site is located at credit.bielak.com. Heck, Bayhouse was the first 'Other Sites' link I put on there. Hmmmmm ...
|
| | Sunday, February 06, 2000 - 11:07 am Good arguments on both sides of this issue. I would submit that the 7 year period is a major culprit of a lot of the consternation. If the period were, say, 3 years, I believe that a lot more people would right themselves by keeping their noses clean and toughing it out for 3 years and then STAYING clean. Good for the borrower, good for the lender, good for the CRA's (WAY fewer disputes). It's a lot harder to look at ahead at 7 years of major credit problems instead of 3...I'm sure there are MANY MANY people who see it as a VERY faint light at the end of a VERY long tunnel. But a 3 year period MIGHT just give a lot of folks the impetus to get right and then stay right. Where did this 7 year period come from, anyway? I'll bet it's just one more question that Greg would like to ask, to which he would also not get an answer. When you get a mortgage, the emphasis is on the last 2 years. Why should a dipshi*t credit card company want to deny someone a visa JUST because of one 30-day late 6 years prior. I bet Christine agrees with my contention that it is yet one more way to create a subset of debtors that are shunted into an area where they can be ripped off with much higher rates.
|
| | Sunday, February 06, 2000 - 01:12 pm Anon: A delinquency several years ago isn't as predictive of your future behavior as one that occurred a few months ago. That's the whole point of the credit scoring system. You don't get turned down for every credit possibility at 6 years 364 days and suddenly get a flood of preapproved cards the next day. "It's not my fault...I had an illness" whine, whine, cry, cry. I don't care how sick you were, yes it is your fault you didn't pay. Smart people keep three month's reserve and buy disability insurance. What you're really trying to say is that you couldn't resist buying all the latest doodads and that you squandered money you should've been salting away. Rcb: No, I wasn't offended by what you said. Lynn: I seriously doubt you know of anyone that's been turned down for credit solely because of one late payment 6 years ago. Absurd. As for the "magic" of the 7-year period there is no magic to it. The magic of democracy is throwing away common sense and expert opinion while putting everything to an ill-informed majority's whims. Yay. I'd like to see the 7-year limit removed. There shouldn't be a limit.
|
| | Sunday, February 06, 2000 - 02:31 pm That's what happens when the loopy bitch doesn't take her medication.
|
| | Sunday, February 06, 2000 - 03:23 pm Sean What happened with your credit and WHY are you in the creditors corner? Do you want your file to remain blemished forever? The cost of disability insurance on credit cards is very high. Did you know that many policies don't cover the minimum payment for the first 6 months? whine whine, cry cry. Sounds like you are. Hmmm, seems like you ought to see about having me put in prison for having accurate negative information removed. FCRA Sean. FCRA. I hear Russia is very nice this time of year!!
|
| | Sunday, February 06, 2000 - 06:56 pm RCB and Sean asked what constitutes solid proof. I thought the answer was obvious, but I guess not. Late Pays: Proof= A copy of the consumer's payment envelope with a post-mark showing that the payment was late. (The date the payment was "processed" or "posted" means nothing) Collection Agency Filings: Proof= The complete payment history of the account. Collection agencies are notorious for reporting incorrect dates and amounts. This problem would be alleviated if collection agencies had to provide payment records to the CRA's. Public Record Items: The CRA's already have the proof for those. In summary, my point regarding solid proof is that the CRA's should not simply take the creditor's word for it. As far as the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is concerned, I thought that was obvious, too. I think people should have the right to present their own evidence and demand proof of the allegation before the seven year credit sentence is imposed. As it is now, we are presumed guilty until we can prove our innocence. We have to constantly monitor "our" credit reports to make sure some company didn't report false, damaging information. If a company reported false information, then we have to go through the dispute process while the damaging information remains. [Credit reports cost $8.50 now, so reviewing reports from the Big Three costs $25.50]. RCB wrote: "Justice is a right, not a priviledge (sp). The extension of credit is a priviledge (sp) and not a right. Nobody "owes" it to you." This is not about the extension of credit. This is about employment, insurance, utilities, phone service, and other things that have nothing to do with the extension of credit. I didn't say anyone owes me credit. Sean: I think you need to learn the difference between civil and criminal law. The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" applies to civil law, as well as to criminal law. The idea of executing someone for filing frivolous disputes with the CRA's is absurd. If one or two people were executed for filing allegedly frivolous disputes, then of course the disputes would stop. People would be afraid to dispute incorrect information for fear of being accused of filing a frivolous dispute. I am the rightful owner of my personal information. I reject the notion that just because I do business with a company they should be able to sell or otherwise transmit personal information about me to others without my permission. Of course, I realize it is legal for them to do this, but that doesn't mean it's right. Bookstores make money selling books. The CRA's make money selling our personal information. Personally, I think we should all receive a cut of the profits. Instead, all of the burden of proof has been placed on our shoulders (time and expense). I don't think it is too much to ask that the CRA's make a genuine attempt to verify the information they report. It's the least they could do. I can't believe that anyone would not find it ludicrous that we have to pay $25.50 to help the CRA's clean up their mistakes. You wrote: "You talk of innocent until proven guilty-- I completely disagree! We're not talking about someone going to prison here, we're talking about the extension of credit." The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is not reserved for criminal cases only. And NO, we are not just talking about the extension of credit. We are talking about the extension of employment, insurance, telephone service, utilities, and other things that have absolutely nothing to do with the extension of credit. We are talking about things people need, not just things people want! You wrote: "The magic of democracy is throwing away common sense and expert opinion while putting everything to an ill-informed majority's whims." What would you suggest as an alternative to democracy? Why do you think there shouldn't be a limit on credit reporting?
|
| | Sunday, February 06, 2000 - 08:03 pm Barbara: Solid proof is a copy of an envelope with a postmark or a complete payment history. Certainly. But do you realize the nightmare of overhead, costs, time, and management that would require? The CRA's would be as big, bloated, slow and expensive as the US Government, and we don't need another one of those. Then we'd have to wait 1 year instead of 30 days for a dispute. This is not about the extension of credit. This is about employment, insurance, utilities, phone service, and other things that have nothing to do with the extension of credit. I didn't say anyone owes me credit EVERY SINGLE ITEM you mentioned is a priviledge, not a right. Nobody owes you a job. Nobody owes you insurance, utilities or a phone. You want the CRA's to give you the moon and the stars (for free, in fact), as if they OWE that to you, simply because they are involved in the process. I never stated that I agreed with the manner in which the CRA's do business. I simply stated that the subscriber's, who PROVIDE THE DATA and have COMPLETE CONTROL of what gets reported and what doesn't, should be the ones held accountable. The CRA's are doing nothing more than collecting & selling the information AND trying to follow the laws governing such actions.
|
| | Sunday, February 06, 2000 - 10:30 pm rcb: Is posting here a privelage or a right? Do I owe ANYONE anything? How about I score the posters, and if the postings aren't up to my expectations, I'll charge a fee. Well, rcb, your posting score isn't that great. How about one free posting per week and any additional postings are $5 each?
|
| | Monday, February 07, 2000 - 03:00 am Of course it's a privilege. You didn't know that? Actually, yes, you do owe everybody something. Try an apology for the manner in which you attack person(s) with whom you disagree, simply because you can. I have been courteous and respectful to everyone, and you return from one of your desert sabbaticals and erupt like Mount St. Helens. As for your system, it's a flawed comparision. You see, you can't score the posters AND determine if the expectations are acceptable by everyone else. If you score the posters, then it's up to each individual poster (subscriber) to use that score to determine if the post meets their own personal expectations of a good post. Regardless of the flaw in your analogy or the model with which you choose to score, a statistical analysis of the results would prove that, generally speaking, those with lower scores tend to post messages that are not up to most other's expectations and the posts will simply be ignored. And high scoring users would be able to post more quickly and easily (no fee!). Of course, there would have to be a review board in place so that users who receive low scores for their posts can dispute the score. And people CAN change thier general demeanor over a period of time. Therefore, old posts would have to be deleted after a certain number of weeks or months to reflect the users current state of emotion conduct. It's a great concept. Sounds too proverbial, though. Hmmmm ...
|
| | Monday, February 07, 2000 - 08:04 am Barbara: Ok let's explore your example a little closer. Let's say you owe a credit grantor one payment of $25.00 every month and they got your November, December and your February payment just arrived but they claim you missed your January payment. How exactly is a credit grantor to prove that they didn't receive your January payment? Proving the payment arrived is easy. Proving the payment didn't arrive is impossible. And the alternative to a democracy: A republic. Rcb: I agree with you entirely that credit, insurance, a job and phone service are all priviledges. However, that's not the way it is often treated. You don't get hired somewhere or you get fired and you can often bring suit against someone and force them to settle because the cost of the defense would be too much. Christine: If you decide to get a post-scoring model to predict the statistical likelihood that our future posts will be worth reading I suggest you contact Fair, Isaac. They do a good job.
|
| | Monday, February 07, 2000 - 08:12 am Sean said: "I seriously doubt you know of anyone that's been turned down for credit solely because of one late payment 6 years ago. Absurd." True, I don't know of anyone, personally (including myself). I am going by the requirements I see posted on some credit cards and loan offers. I've seen on many mortgage offers the stipulation of no 30 day lates EVER on revolving in order to get the *best* rates. And I've seen credit card requirements about no liens, lates, etc., EVER. (BTW, "EVER" is construed as the 7-year period to which a potential creditor would have access to such information). Now this doesn't mean you can't get credit, it just means that you are going to get the 21% visa instead of the 11.9%, and the 10.5% mortgage instead of the 8.5%. My point was really that it creates a subset of "inferior" borrowers that have to pay through the nose. Common sense, as well as the FICO models, tell you that a 6-year old late is far less reflective of a payer's credit habits (now) than a 6-month old late...and FICO does accommodate that into the scores; however, if the info I mention above is true, the lenders who have an *absolute* threshold are unaffected. If Diamond VISA has a requirement for no 30-day lates ever, then your FICO score of 780 does you no good if you had that 6-year old late. This is why I was carping about the 7-year period. IF it were 3 years, then someone with a 6-year old late would ALSO get the Diamond VISA. But I guess someone could make an argument about the *relative* attributes of a 7 and 10 year period. It just seems to me that 7-years, as an absolute period, is unreasonable. I believe it was Barbara who termed it a "7 year *sentence* ".
|
| | Monday, February 07, 2000 - 09:26 am Well, there are a LOT of credit grantors out there. If you don't like the terms offered by one, go to another one. Personally if a person has a 780 FICO and I was a credit card issuer they'd have a card and a good rate -- I don't care if they were late once six years ago. As for the "best rate" you'll never have that unless you're a bank or a government. I believe the prime rate is currently 5.75 and even the best credit card rate is still 8.9 percent.
|
| | Monday, February 07, 2000 - 09:32 am Sean: 7.99% fixed (not an intro or teaser rate) - Fleet Platinum - got one.
|
| | Monday, February 07, 2000 - 11:19 am Not bad... what's the annual fee? I may have graduated from credit hell myself... I got a pre-approved card offer over the weekend for an AT&T Universal Card. No annual fee, 2.9% teaser (9 months) and variable thereafter (currently 11.1%). Of course being pre-approved doesn't guarantee receiving the card and they charge a cool 3% fee to balance transfer. There will be a credit check and, as usual, the operator was not able to tell me which credit reporting agency will be used. What the heck, I went for it. My financial calculator indicated even with the 3 percent fee that it was an improvement over my current rates.
|
| | Tuesday, February 08, 2000 - 04:37 am No annual fee. Partner's First gave us a Platinum card with 2.9% for a year (12.9 after), zero balance transfer costs and 2.9 on the transfers. You might check them out. Bielak's Consumer Credit Information Center (forums and website) has now opened at credit.bielak.com. It's new, which means info is lean right now, but come on over. We don't censor and ban based on who our personal friends are, either.
|
| | Wednesday, February 16, 2000 - 11:42 pm I think everyone, even Sean, and those others have valid points and good info to offer. Some may not agree with a lot of points, but if you absolutely cannot stand a person, don't read his posts. I think the more information, the better. This is a great site, in large part to all the people posting. Keep up the good work, and thank you. Matt
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |