Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Saturday, November 27, 1999 - 03:42 pm  Here's the problem. I filed BK a little over a year ago including all creditors. Some have subsequently reported "High Credit" amount and a current -0- balance along with a "Included in BK"; this is fine I assume. Some of the creditors have reported "High Credit" amount and a current balance oweing equal to the amount included in my BK. BUT, then report the account as "Charged Off" with no reference to the account being included in my BK. It seems to me that this presentation sugguests I still owe this balance. Also, since FICO etal credit mathematical models compare "Balance " to "High Credit", this has a compounded negative effect on my score since the "Balance" and "High credit" is the same! I am in the beginning stages of correcting my credit and I want to demand the bureaus investigate all the creditors and require them to revise their reporting to zero-out the (outstanding) "Balance" amount and included "Included in BK". This will show that I owe them nothing. The FICO etal mathematical models will now compare -0- to the "high Credit" . Am I going in the right direction? Do I need some legal basis for this demand? Is there any case law on this point? Thank you , in advance, for your reply as well as your input in the chat room. PS: do these creditors do this on purpose to further drive down the score?
|
| | Saturday, November 27, 1999 - 04:43 pm We have a bankruptcy lawyer who posts on here periodically and he seems to recommend that you obtain copies of your bankruptcy papers and forward them to the three main credit reporting agencies. Apparently that sorts everything out. I have also seen the stock dispute forms that credit reporting agencies hand out often have a box to check for "included in bankruptcy" so apparently it's a pretty common error that you're dealing with.
|
| | Sunday, November 28, 1999 - 03:02 pm The problem is that nobody wants to parade their bankruptcy in front of the country, so that common error of the credit reporting agencies and their partners in the deed, the creditors, goes unchallenged publicly. Go after them with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, document your case, and show it on the Internet. Who knows where we can find legal cases in which the consumer sued in an instance such as this?
|
| | Monday, November 29, 1999 - 01:28 pm To find cases where a consumer sued, go to a local law library and ask the librarian where the United States Code Annotated is located. The US Code (15 USC 1681, et seq) is where the FCRA is located. "Annotated" means that it lists every case which involved or referred to that law. I've never looked, but I doubt that there is much. Few attorneys have an interest in championing rights if they can't be paid for their time. I have personally found that the most rewarding (warm, fuzzy) cases often pay the least. You can also look at the FTC website for their FCRA opinions, but these will not involve litigation for a consumer's recovery of money to compensate them for damages. I'm sure that the FTC is purely administrative. As for the inaccurate bnk info, it must be corrected. You might assume that someone reading your credit report must know that if one debt was included in bnk, so must the others. False assumption. Some debts are excluded, intentionally or unintentionally, by debtors. Some are re-affirmed. Others were excepted from discharge under §523 of the Code. Still others might be new debts (post-bankruptcy). In every case, the debt survived. What future creditor wants a consumer who has a bnk and already has debts? Doesn't indicate that you did well with your "fresh start". Worst of both worlds. Besides, some of these loan officers are constrained to follow strict loan guidelines, and may only be allowed to consider what is presented to them in a credit report. While this would not be true with a mortgage, it can still only help you to correct your report.
|
| | Tuesday, November 30, 1999 - 03:57 am voigtkampff: What do you mean about it not being true with a mortgage?
|
| | Tuesday, November 30, 1999 - 06:41 am Greg, mortgage loan officers are more aware of the great number of inaccuracies in credit reports than the average lender. I'm generalizing. But I've repeatedly seen mortgage loan officers ask to see the bankruptcy documents and ignore SOME of what they see on a 3 agency report. Just last month, a mortgage lender specifically asked for the bankruptcy documents without waiting for the credit report inaccuracies. The problem that I see with this is that even if a loan officer knows to ignore information on a report, they still do not know what the correct FICO score would be if that info were excised. I offer free credit advice (within my abilities) to my clients, and maybe 10% take me up on the offer. Yet they still get mortgages, even with the inaccurate info on their credit reports. I had a friend who filed 2 bankruptcies. Even though his credit report listed 3 bankruptcies, and showed inaccurately that some debts were not discharged, he was approved on a mortgage BEFORE his bankruptcy was closed. What happened??? Don't know. It seems that the mortgage lender ignored the 3 agency report in favor of the truth.
|
| | Tuesday, November 30, 1999 - 06:54 am voigtkampff: Overall, do you think more bankrupt people would be approved through automated underwriting with accurate credit scores, than without?
|
| | Tuesday, November 30, 1999 - 12:15 pm Definitely more would be approved. As it is the latest statistic (last year) that I read stated that 17% of people who filed bnk had unsecured, major credit cards within 30 days. That's not bad but keep in mind that people who file have at least 1 discharged debt which does NOT say "included in bnk" on the report. When a creditor fails to advise the CRAs of the consumer's bnk, I do NOT think that they do so out of malice. I think that they don't know. I guess they lose the bankruptcy notice that the court mails to them. So they probably continue to report the credit line as delinquent, until it escalates to an R9. The typical bankrupt files when they are already a few months late. Since a bnk case takes 4 more months, by the end the consumer will show some delinquencies. I am theorizing about how it comes to pass. But I know that it is a fact that my people often show current R9s on debts that were included in the bnk.
|
| | Tuesday, November 30, 1999 - 03:22 pm The courts should start playing statistical analysis as they hand out BKs. And, if those accounts go bad, I don't want to hear the squawking of those credit card issuers you mentioned. The consumer is oblivious to the credit report errors-- much to his detriment. He is also unlikely to make much noise about the issue because of shame. Malice, directly? Maybe not. Certainly negligence on somebody's part. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of sanctions against creditors who report incorrect information, and the Out game played by them and the credit reporting agencies-- pointing their fingers at each other-- continues. We have discussed this before, but for everyone else's benefit: the FHA mortgage loan guidelines are clear regarding post-bankruptcy underwriting: approval is possible only two years after discharge of a Chapter 7. However, the cloud of errors on credit reports is a major hindrance in a day of automated underwriting based, in large part, on a credit score that uses the incorrect data as its basis. This after-bankruptcy issue is one of the first we will tackle at creditaccuracy.com; it is keeping people out of homeownership who want it.
|
| | Wednesday, December 01, 1999 - 06:16 am This link is to an FTC press release dated late 1995 against Equifax. An additonal article pertaining to that Order states, among other things, "but this February (1995), the Federal Trade Commission took up the baton by announcing an investigation of Equifax for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The commission reported that Equifax had failed "to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the consumer credit information it compiles and sells nationwide to credit grantors, employers, and others." The trade commission went on, saying that Equifax had maintained "mixed files" containing information on someone other than the person named on the report; that it had failed to promptly delete inaccurate information disputed by consumers; that information deleted from reports had a curious way of reappearing on future reports; and that Equifax had "furnished consumer reports to those who had no permissible purpose under the Fair Credit Act to obtain them." After the commission's February announcement, the clock started to tick on a 60-day period of public comment. In press reports, Equifax brushed aside the commission order, saying that the Federal Trade Commission's action would only codify practices that Equifax had already adopted. Ironically, most of the written comments the commission received agreed on this point - and they criticized the commission for not forcing Equifax to adopt substantive changes in the way it does business. "Equifax announced that the order will not cause it to change its operation," wrote David Szwak, an attorney in Shreveport, Louisiana, who has been in litigation with Equifax several times. "The trade commission should begin taking real steps toward enforcing the Credit Act and other Truth in Lending legislation." Curiously, in the below press release it states that Equifax would re-visit the procedural problems in 18 months to see if additional changes need to be implemented. Apparently it never happened as my case the inaccuracies were documented and reported as early as 1997 and continued through 1999, until we filed suit! Equifax does not stand alone in their inability to hear consumers by any means. Additionally, my frustration lies within the fact that even when we can document our numerous attempts, prove our innocence and their violations, we are told "so what....What are your damages?" They minimize and trivialize the effects of their recklessness and attempt to quantify the amount of emotional duress they put us through, of course, as minimal. However, worse than that, they blatantly have total disregard, not only for the intentions of the FCRA, but the FTC, (creditors,the OCC) as well. The FTC should point out to these corporations that the laws are not there to protect them. Nobody should have to go through this type of abuse due to their errors and then endure the "so what....what are your damages?" To me that is a slap in the face to every consumer and regulatory agency involved. According to their interpretation, they can disseminate inaccurate information, release private documents or violate our rights as long as it doesn't "cost" us, what they perceive to be damages! Who's to stop them? In their view, I guess, they can break the laws and take their chances on who is strong enough to take them on and endure more abuse. In my particular case, EVERY single regulation of the FCRA was violated, (including a breached Settlement Agreement, the sale of non-existent debt to a collection agency, disseminating/obtaining my credit report under fraudulent and non-permissible purposes, re-inserting inaccurate information, etc.) yet they can say "so what" to me......what hope is there for other consumers with less violations or less damages? We need to replace the arrogant, "SO WHAT" attitude and make the FCRA the tool and the deterrence as was intended. And, by the way, to any of the parties in my case if you are reading this, please know, the bombardment of redundant paper work thrown our way, the continual attempts to thwart justice does not deter me or intimidate me, it only strenghtens my resolve to find justice. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1995/9508/equifax2.htm
|
| | Sunday, December 19, 1999 - 02:03 am Robert, you need to understand something, the FCRA gives Credit Reporting Agencies the right to report derogatory credit for seven years. You can have 100 charge offs, and 100 collection accounts, and 1 bankruptcy. All 201 accounts would be accurate information.The bankruptcy can stay on for 10 years, the others for 7. After 7 years, all that would show is 1 bankruptcy, end of story.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |