Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 03:23 am  My parents are having problems because the bank who has the mortgage on their former home, has to this day not reported it. So the only thing that shows up on their credit report is some bad credit 7 years ago. The fact that they have owned a home and paid for it for the last 3 or 4 years is no where to be found. Does the bank have the right not to report such things? Is their any legal action that can be persued?
|
| | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 03:33 am There is no law or requirement that anyone report anything on your credit either positive or negative. The only requirement is that if they do put something on your credit profile it must be accurate and complete. I recommend your parents simply obtain a secured credit card. I believe AMEX offered a secured Optima card for as little as $200 deposit and no annual fee. First Consumer's National Bank also offers a secured card for only $100 deposit but there's a $39 annual fee. Bad credit entries only stay for 7 years, so in 12 months your parents will find themselves receiving pre-approved offers in the mail. The important thing for them to remember is to pay their credit card on time and to keep the balance as low as possible.
|
| | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 06:37 am What is the definition of "complete"?
|
| | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 06:54 am Greg - Let me answer that question so that you never need to make such posts again (almost always directed as Sean) - WHATEVER YOU CAN NEGOTIATE, OR ULTIMATELY LITIGATE Christene - I've had it with Greg as well
|
| | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 07:28 am Greg- What I don't get is why you even keep asking these questions. Any answer you get will recieve no satisfaction with you, and will invariably lead to more questions. You are just being a pain in the ass on purpose. Why is it Sean's responibility to clear up the ambiguity that Fair Issac presents? that the CRA's present? What is the definition of unfair (as proposed on your web site)? -Dan
|
| | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 07:29 am Alex: I'm guessing that your parents' mortgage is from a "subprime" lender, if they got it three or four years ago with nothing on their history except some bad credit. There is, currently, nothing in the law to prevent subprime lenders from holding consumers hostage by giving them loans and then failing to report their "rehabilitating" experience. However, there are several attempts every session by some legislators to introduce bills that would address this kind of predatory behavior. I strongly encourage you to send a letter to your congressional representatives. It won't fix the problem tomorrow, but it's a step in the right direction. Have your folks considered refinancing? There are still mortgage lenders--especially community banks and credit unions--who would look at a 3-4 year good payment history, via direct verification of mortgage or a payment history from the mortgage servicer or cancelled checks, even if the credit score is low. If their current mortgage is at a high rate--it probably is--they could save the cost of the refi in lowered payments, as well as getting a loan that will be reported.
|
| | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 07:38 am That's quite an odd answer. The point is that all creditors may not report complete information. I believe I have seen complaints about some who regularly report information that lacks completeness (less than other creditors; less than the number of fields on the credit report). If there is a requirement that something is "complete," there should be a definition. I don't think that has been addressed. If my questions are irrelevant, or Sean sees them as attacks, certainly others see them as such-- and my guilt is self-evident. But, if I listened to the detractors of my efforts on creditscoring.com, I would have walked away a long time ago believing that knowing my score would do me no good. Fred, what do you mean, you've "had it"? Please be specific.
|
| | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 07:41 am Dan: Where do I say on creditscoring.com that scoring is unfair?
|
| | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 07:48 am Greg- I find it curious that you still have not answered my questions. I will reitterate them here in case you forgot. Why is it Sean's responibility to clear up the ambiguity that Fair Issac presents? that the CRA's present? What is the definition of unfair (as proposed on your web site)? -Dan
|
| | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 08:03 am Greg- I should have used the word fair instead. But you have numerous links to sites that talk about the fairness of credit scoring. I can provide examples if you like, from your website, but I actually don't care to get an answer to that question anyway. It is a demonstration of taking an everyday word and scrutinizing it because someone uses it. I still would like answers to the other questions though. -Dan
|
| | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 08:16 am Dan: Were you lying, or just incompetant in your comments (regarding my alleged statements regarding the unfairness of scoring)? Those are the only two possiblities. Humor us with examples, or drop the insinuation. Like it or not, this post will stay here forever while your contention rots. It is not Sean's responsibilty to clear up the ambiguity that Fair, Issac and the CRAs present. However, if he wishes to use something abiguous to make a point, I will question it. Try not to stick your head in the sand too much deeper. There is no answer to your leading question.
|
| | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 08:33 am Greg: I don't see a reason to try and insult me, but I think my original point has been proven with your last remarks. I stated and I quote, "I can provide examples if you like, from your website, but I actually don't care to get an answer to that question anyway", and I will "Humor" you with an example "regarding the unfairness of scoring". http://www.creditscoring.com/pages/nationalbureaus.htm Survey: Consumers See Credit Scoring As Fair Practice Odd. Consumers giving opinions on credit scoring, something they know little about; the national credit bureaus refuse to release even a consumer's score to him, let alone how scoring works. One of the few references to credit scoring on the Equifax site Maybe by your definition this could be construed as incompetant because it uses the word "fair" as opposed to using the word "unfair", and in the post above, you used the word "unfairness" which I never used (maybe that says a little about your cometancy, and I will refer you to your own words "Like it or not, this post will stay here forever while your contention rots.") Now I will ask you a question about your ambiguos statement "Try not to stick your head in the sand too much deeper." How deep is too much deeper? -Dan
|
| | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 09:06 am Dan: More than 10 feet. You're not one for metaphor, obviously. I'll rephrase it for you in more elementary terms: try not to further ignore things that are relevant. If one spends any time at all on creditscoring.com, it would become readily apparent that it is largely a collection of links to others' documents. In this case, Equifax's. http://www.equifax.com/headline/decem96/surveyc.html That's why the words "Survey: Consumers See Credit Scoring As Fair Practice" are a hyperlink to a story by Equifax , and are italicized. Are you not getting that convention? That that is the title of the document? That all you have to do to see what the link refers to is click (use mouse to direct cursor over hyperlink and press left mouse button)? What is unclear about it? Hell, I could have left out any commentary at all, and the story of this botched affair would have been just as compelling. Still looking for that word "fair," or any derivation coming from me (that last bit about "unfairness": what a riot... "THE SUBJECT OF THE CONVERSATION: UNFAIR" just doesn't have a ring to it, you know?). When will we see that?
|
| | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 09:40 am I think anyone reading this thread will see your writings for what they are (and no, I will not reply with a direct definition of what they are, I'm not catering to you). I doubt they will ever get this far into the discussion though, as it would bore them. (my opinion) Yes, I do know that your site is largely a collection of links to other sites (and I might add that many of those links are dead links) And no I am not searching your site for the word "fair". That example I gave was the exact example I had in mind in my original post. If anyone goes to the page and reads that spot, they will see that you directly interpreted the word "fair" in your first word following the link. "Odd". That to me, and I may be wrong, is an interpretation of the word "fair". I was just asking for your interpretation of that word. Now, you may be right that I used the word "unfair" (gasp), and for that I appologize, it was a mistake, and an honest one. For you to ask "Were you lying, or just incompetant in your comments (regarding my alleged statements regarding the unfairness of scoring)?", is unfair (there's that word again). I didn't point out to you that I never "alleged" you had "statements regarding the unfairness of scoring" (If I did, show me where). Never did I say you stated whether scoring is fair or unfair. I only asked for your definition of unfair. I didn't degrade to calling you incompetant though (I can accept a misinterpretation, we are human after all). I actually believe name calling is a weak argument. Asking your definition of "unfair" was used to illustrate a point "You're not one for metaphor, obviously". (To be fair, I'm just doing to you what you do to Sean, and I'm being sarcastic). Just my opinion on your comments. -Dan '97 Plymouth Neon (White)
|
| | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 11:00 am WELCOME BACK TO THE RIKKI LAKE SHOW. Incompetence. It is a characteristic, not a name, and there you go again. You said, "What is the definition of unfair (as proposed on your web site)?" So, are we to believe that you meant "the definition of unfair" is "proposed"? Or just that "unfair" (to use your way of speak) is "proposed"? If you're doing this only to make a point and waste my time, you probably won't answer that. When I started looking into credit scoring, I found an alarming amount of wrong information-- disseminated by blowhards-- that "explained" credit scoring. http://creditscoring.com/pages/explanations.htm Exposing the blowhards was my way of eradicating them. That's why some of the links no longer exist: they simply embarrassed themselves into submission. So since the blowhards didn't have the answers, I got the brilliant idea to go to the source of the scores-- those who sell them under trademarked names and make money on them-- and ask how one, itty bitty, teeny tiny, widdy thing like the number of credit cards would affect my score. And, blam! Shut my mouth! THEY couldn't tell me! THIS WAS BIGGER THAN I THOUGHT ORIGINALLY. Perhaps I can clear it up for you here, if you really want to discuss something, rather than waste time with games of rhetoric. I haven't the slightest idea how fair scoring is; there isn't enough data with which to make such a statement. Seen any studies lately?
|
| | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 12:24 pm end of thread for me. Now you're wasting my time. -Dan
|
| | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 12:39 pm Greg- I like your style and I am glad to have read the info on your site. I believe with help of sites like this and yours and of course the "net", the whole credit "industry" will someday become consumer friendly. Slowly but surely comsumers are being informed of what really happens in the credit world. I learn something everyday.
|
| | Friday, March 31, 2000 - 01:05 pm I remember recently in the news that some guy named Bill had allegedly been doing something with a gal named Monica. It turns out Bill denied it under oath and then Monica showed up with a dress that was stained with DNA evidence that matched Bill's DNA. I seem to recall he made a statement defending the truthfulness of his testimony under oath that said he had a different understanding of what the word "is" meant than his detractors. Now I'm not here to tell you what the meaning of the word "is" is. I'm not interested in going into a discussion of the meaning of the word "complete" either. I am merely suggesting that the person's parents obtain a secured credit card and rebuild their credit.
|
| | Sunday, April 02, 2000 - 04:43 pm Well. It isn't personal. This issue is a little bigger than what Sean is interested in discussing. Had I wanted to ask only him a question just to trip him up, I would have addressed only him and asked only him a question just to trip him up. Recently, Freddie Mac made a statement regarding mortgage companies that don't bother to report to credit bureaus. Why don't those companies do that? So people are forced to stay in the same high-rate mess they're in with their high-rate mortgage company, which, just coincidentally, finds it too inconvenient, or costly, to report to the credit bureaus. http://www.freddiemac.com/news/archives2000/predatory.htm In the first paragraph of the statement, it says, "Freddie Mac today announced a series of steps aimed at protecting borrowers from several predatory lending practices. These steps include a ban on the purchase of mortgages with single-premium credit insurance policies and requiring subprime lenders to accurately and fully report their borrower credit files to credit repositories." Repeating: "accurately and fully report." The Fair Credit Reporting Act contains the term "complete and accurate" several times in its text. In another discussion, we learn about the practice of a lender to leave out a very important piece of information about an account. http://www.bayhouse.com/discus/messages/4/276.html?MondayJanuary3120000333pm (Ironically, as an aside, we see Sean saying, "It's a big, big deal and I'm glad that you guys are sufficiently awake and aware to realize that.") So, there must really be something to this notion of "completeness" if it is mentioned, specifically, in the law, and if the number two Government Sponsored Enterprise that buys mortgages has pause to mention it. The point is this: Missing information affects your credit score. If the credit bureaus don't police the contributors and demand complete data, some consumers will not get the loans they are actually qualified to get. And, overall, the scoring system is skewed by the incomplete data. Are the CRAs allowed to accept incomplete data? No. Do they ban information from those who try to furnish it? What is the definition of "complete"?
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |