|
Via e-mail to regs.comments@federalreserve.gov Re: Request
for Information for Study on Investigations of Disputed Consumer Information
Reported to Consumer Reporting Agencies Docket No. OP-1209 A. Introduction Since the late 80s I have been struggling with credit
bureaus and furnishers on my own behalf and on behalf of my clients. The quality of credit reports is now lower
than ever. Furnishers and CRAs are
conspiring to lower credit scores by omitting vital data, devastating the lives of many millions of consumers. While the FCRA has been enhanced to include
furnisher responsibilities, furnishers could not possibly care less about the
law. In recent years I have been assisting clients and
readers at my websites CreditForum.org and CreditFactors.com and I learned that
consumer protection laws such as the FCRA are primarily enacted to limit
liability of CRAs and to preempt state laws with teeth. I still have a difficult time believing that James
McAfee, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Federal Reserve Bank of After all, it is inexplicable why regulators like Mr.
McAfee refuse to investigate consumer complaints and actively work to protect
the profits of the corporations they regulate. Notably, the majority of “enhancements” in the FACT
Act are enforceable only by regulators and consumers have no private cause of
action, rendering these new provisions useless. Since credit scoring and credit reporting are related,
I already addressed many of my concerns in my B. Credit Reporting Problems 1) Furnishers and CRAs refuse to report the credit limits for revolving accounts From the Board’s Request for Information: “Section 623(a)(2) of the FCRA provides that when a
furnisher who regularly and in the ordinary course of business reports information
to one or more consumer reporting agencies determines that the information provided
is not complete or accurate, the furnisher must promptly notify the consumer reporting
agency. The furnisher must also provide the consumer reporting agency any corrections
to that information, or any additional information necessary to make the
information provided by the furnisher to the consumer reporting agency complete and accurate.
Thereafter, the furnisher must not report to the consumer reporting agency any of the information
that remains incomplete or inaccurate.”
[emphasis added] The FCRA states numerous times that the furnishers
must report complete
information. a) Capital
One refuses to report the credit limits for almost 50 million revolving
accounts. Capital One targets consumers with credit problems
with “subprime” accounts and the damages are especially serious for consumers
with no other open revolving accounts. I
already described the importance of the credit limits for credit scores in my b) Target
Stores owns Retailers National Bank and it also fails to report the credit
limits for the Target store cards. The
Target
My federal complaint filed on The
court filings document that corporate In response to my CRA dispute Target had verified the
incomplete reporting without the credit limit.
After I sued Target, it never offered to correct the reporting, to
provide me with the adverse action letter and/or to settle. Target expects to prevail in federal court despite
the FCRA requirement for complete reporting. Target and Capital One have the support of corrupt
regulators like the Federal Reserve Bank of The CRAs have known for many years that the missing
credit limits destroy the credit scores of many millions of consumers and the
CRAs do nothing to ensure the accuracy of credit reports – they cater to
their clients, the furnishers, and they ignore the consumer disputes. In 11/02,
Trans Experian and Equifax refused to add the limits and
Equifax even changed the limits to ZERO for extra negative impact on my credit
scores. In
May 2003, I sent my certified mail dispute with the statements showing the
credit limits to Experian and Equifax. Experian had the nerve to entirely refuse
this dispute. Equifax processed this dispute for one
account, but failed to correct the limit and it ignored the dispute for the
other account. On
“Why did
you not correct my Experian report to include all credit limits for my credit
cards?” To date,
Experian and Equifax do NOT report those credit limits on my reports, despite
the litigation. 2)
Bank One (First It is Bank One policy to report discharged accounts as
charged off with the delinquent balances and it refuses to correct the
reporting upon consumer disputes with the CRAs and Bank One. Several scans of the credit reporting
with the balance as well as the re-aged reporting are attached to my Bank One press
release at http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/3/prweb113432.htm.
The CRAs not only do absolutely nothing to ensure the
accuracy of credit reports, but they even verify the disputed data they KNOW to
be incorrect! It’s inconceivable that CRAs
wouldn’t know that the balance for a discharged account must be zero. Additionally, Experian also re-aged the
account. Obviously, the date of first
permanent delinquency can’t possibly be after the discharge of the bankruptcy,
it’s extremely unlikely that a consumer continued to pay after the filing date. Yet, Experian states that it will report the
account until 1-2006. The OCC supported the Bank One illegal credit
reporting, as documented at http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/14/14.html. 3)
Experian and Trans Experian no longer reports
the scheduled deletion date. About a year ago Experian
stopped reporting when derogatory accounts will be deleted. Experian used to report "This account is scheduled to continue on
record until ..." (as in the scan above) and apparently that made it too
easy for consumers to dispute re-aged accounts. It is not possible to
determine from the Experian credit
report when a charged off account will be deleted. For unpaid charge-offs and collections often the
“Date of Status” is the date utilized by Experian, but not always. The Status Date is frequently updated,
especially after payments. I documented that Experian
frequently re-aged accounts when it still disclosed the deletion dates on my
own reports as well as on many reader/client reports. Trans On “How
long will the collection account for Professional Recovery remain on your
credit report? The FCRA specifically states that the date of first
permanent delinquency, NOT the date of last activity is to be used to age
collections and charge-offs. On “… I asked Trans Union to check into this further and
learned that this account is scheduled to purge from your credit file in
November 2004. This would indicate that the date of last activity was November
1997. …” (transcript of fax at http://www.creditcourt.com/tu/tu-fax-3-26-02.shtml) While the 11/04 deletion date is much better than the 4/06
deletion date, it is still a year late. In 11/96 Pacific Bell (SBC) failed to credit my check
for payment of my phone bill. I provided my cancelled check, clearly evidencing
that the check was deposited into the Pacific Bell San Francisco Bank of Is everybody confused now? Obviously, most consumers have no clue how to
age accounts. The FTC publishes specific instructions for
aging charge-offs and collections to furnishers at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/infopro.htm:
6. Reporting Delinquencies -- Section 623(a)(5). Notably,
the FTC provides absolutely no information for consumers. The importance of disclosure of the aging date: a) Obviously, the derogatory
accounts should be deleted after 7 years. b) Much more important is
the disclosure of the first permanent delinquency to users of credit reports. Upon review of my credit
report in late 2001, anyone in their right mind would have declined my
application for credit or housing.
Despite the fact that I had no legitimate late payment since 5/96, my
reports contained false charge-offs and one fraudulent Pacific Bell collection
had mushroomed into 3 different collections, all with different assignment
dates. Every time Pacific Bell assigned
the account to another collector, they reported the account, and of course with
a new assignment date. There is apparently nothing
in the FCRA requiring a collector to DELETE accounts after reassignment to
another collector. Fair Isaac uses this assignment
date to rate the account for credit scores, and obviously a NEW collection
or charge-off lowers scores much more than an old derogatory account. Due to the absence of the aging
date, a user had no way of knowing that this collection was from 11/96, it
looked like every couple years I chose not to pay my bills. My credit reports portrayed me as a deadbeat. Additionally, Trans Union
had the audacity to continue to report the collection when Professional
Recovery advised that the collection had been transferred to American Agencies. CRAs MUST be required to disclose how charge-offs and
collections are aged. Equifax reported the incorrect 11/97 date of last activity
(DLA). While consumers who study credit
reporting at my websites or pay me for personal consultation will learn that
the Equifax DLA is the date to look for, at least 99% of consumers have no idea
that the DLA is the aging date. Since Trans Union and
Experian don’t report the aging date, neither users nor consumers have
any way of knowing when a charge-off or collection occurred. All CRAs should disclose
either the date of the first permanent delinquency or the scheduled deletion
date on every consumer disclosure and to users of reports, preferably in the
same manner by all CRAs, to make the reading of the reports a little less
confusing for people who don’t analyze credit reports on a daily basis. 4)
Why are furnishers allowed to knowingly report
inaccurate data? From http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/infopro.htm:
1. General Prohibition on
Reporting Inaccurate Information - Section 623(a)(1)(A) and Section
623(a)(1)(C).
WHY can a furnisher legally provide
information that it knows to be inaccurate if it provides an address for
disputes? I can think of two reasons: a) Most people will never dispute
because they have no way of knowing which incorrect information the furnisher
reports. The creditors and insurers
benefit from the higher rates for artificially low credit scores. b) In order to find out about
any incorrect data, consumers have to purchase credit reports. The CRAs benefit financially. 5)
The consumer dispute statements must be
prohibited. The CRAs and the FTC
constantly advise consumers to submit their up to 100-word statements when
incorrect information is verified. a) Credit scores ignore these
statements.
According to Fair Isaac, over 75% of credit decisions involve their FICO
scores. b) During a manual credit
review, these statements usually make consumers look like liars and not very
bright. c) Consumers can end up
reporting derogatory data after furnishers deleted. Rather than encourage
consumers to submit these at best useless statements, consumers should be
encouraged to submit their complaints to the regulators for investigation. And I mean INVESTIGATION, not sending the
consumers complaint numbers and doing nothing. 6)
CRAs MUST be required to lock the consumer’s
current address. I first learned in 2002 that
Trans Union utilizes whatever address is reported most recently by the
furnishers. Ms. Lewis, as attorney for
Trans Union, wrote on “There is nothing Trans
Union can do about your creditors reporting your old addresses. Trans Union has
no way of knowing and keeping up with a consumer's current address which is why
the current address and previous addresses on a file can be changed. In 2003 I documented the “Equifax and CSC WILLFUL Enablement of Identity Theft”
at http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/1701/1701.html I had advised my client to opt out of pre-approved
offers because his credit reports were sent to his OLD address. Despite my fax to Donna White in the CSC legal
department, requesting that she send credit reports only to his current
address, she promptly sent the investigation results with the new report to
his OLD address AGAIN! *** The dispute results claimed that a collection was
deleted, but it was still on the report! *** While my client opted out of promos on The credit reports contain the consumers’ entire
financial history as well as all identifying information required to steal the
consumers’ identity. The incorrect OLD address is utilized by creditors who
mail out pre-approvals! Those pre-approvals often result in ID theft,
especially when mailed to an incorrect address. CRAs MUST be
required to lock the consumers’ current address! The CRAs demand that consumers notify every single
creditor of the new address, for the benefit of their clients, the creditors,
insurers and collectors: a) When a consumer notifies creditors or collectors with
a delinquent account, they can immediately start collecting. b) If a consumer can get a creditor to do anything at all
for a closed and positive account, it is most likely DELETION of the account.
As the consumers lose their old positive tradelines, their credit scores go
down because their account history becomes shorter and they have fewer positive
accounts. Household wouldn’t even change my address after
several written notices for an open account, how is a consumer going to
get the address for a closed account changed? It is almost impossible to get the addresses for
closed accounts changed and to confirm the correction. I would never even try that – it’s credit
score suicide due to the probable deletion of my positive accounts. 7)
CRAs often refuse to investigate disputes of
incorrect addresses Experian reports literally entire pages filled with addresses. All CRAs are reluctant to delete old or incorrect addresses
or they refuse address disputes categorically, claiming that the addresses have
to be disputed with creditor. Fair Isaac claims that personal data is not included
in their FICO scores, but the deletion of old or incorrect addresses is
important because some users and especially landlords and employers still
review credit reports manually. a) A landlord will be reluctant to rent to someone with
many different addresses, short term tenants are not profitable and creditors
and employers like to see stability as evidenced by few moves. b) In many areas people do discriminate based on the
applicant’s address. Californians and
Texans are especially unpopular in c) My own reports contain many addresses where I never
lived, including the addresses of bill payment services and my ex-husband’s
address. d) When a consumer is an authorized users for another
person’s credit card, often that person’s address will be reported on the
authorized user’s report. e) I have seen credit reports with addresses at
correctional institutions and mental hospitals.
Would YOU hire or rent to someone with those addresses? Previous addresses are extremely important for manual
credit reviews. Should employers and landlords be informed by the CRAs
that an applicant was in jail or in a mental hospital many years ago? 8)
Student loans are reported as numerous
individual loans while the borrower only gets one statement and makes only one
payment. When a student loan is derogatory, the reporting of
many delinquent loans lowers the FICO scores.
The negative score factor: “There is evidence of
multiple accounts with missing payments or having derogatory
indicators/remarks” The student loan servicers claim that it is accurate
reporting to report a new account every time the borrower receives a
disbursement. This reporting of one
student loan as multiple (often 5 or more) derogatory accounts is the
equivalent of reporting a new account every time a new charge is made to a
credit card – it makes no sense. When a borrower gets one bill requiring one payment,
the loan should be reported as one account on the credit reports. 9)
The CRAs must provide complete consumer
disclosures I already specifically mentioned the undisclosed aging
date, but there is a lot more undisclosed data. Experian owns CreditExpert and ConsumerInfo.com CreditExpert
offers consumer products such as
consumer disclosures, credit monitoring and the snake oil incorrect credit
scores no lender uses. (Discussed in detail in my ConsumerInfo.com is also known as freecreditreport.com and everybody
must have heard or seen at least a few of the commercials for the “free” credit
reports. Class actions suits have been
filed for unfair and deceptive practices and failure to process cancellations. Nobody
addresses the fact that Experian’s and its subsidiaries’ credit reports contain
only about half the data reported to creditors! Trans
Union owns TrueCredit. Just as Experian, the Trans Union and TrueCredit
consumer disclosures are missing lots of data reported to the creditors and it
sells incorrect snake oil scores. Equifax provides the most complete reports and to my
knowledge does not engage in the sale of credit scores other than the Fair
Isaac FICO scores. None of the credit reports disclose the inquiry type
utilized by Fair Isaac to determine which inquiries are ignored when consumers have
multiple inquiries after shopping for mortgages and auto loans. The detailed explanation of deduplication is posted at
http://www.fight-back.us/forum/index.php?showtopic=105 Through my research I determined that many auto and
mortgage inquiries are not deduplicated. It is possible that the Experian reports contain this
data as the inquiry description, but I have been unable to confirm this because
I don’t have the legal skills and funds to successfully sue for answers to my
questions. Currently, one of my negative FICO score factors is
that I have too many inquiries. 10) CRAs started to no longer disclose most credit inquiries In the last year Trans Union and Experian removed the
“soft” inquiries from consumer disclosures.
11) Trans
The Trans Union consumer disclosure showed NO late
payments or any derogatory data for the student loan. "In
prior 48 months from last update, never late." The Fair Isaac Trans Union report: “Worst
Delinquency: 120 days past due” My client was a Credit
Activist and the documentation is available on request. 12) Trans
In 6/03, I noticed that the Fair Isaac credit report
contained ** 5 ** credit inquiries that were not reported on the Trans Union
consumer disclosure. Details are at http://creditforum.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1786 Inquiries
are a first sign of identity theft. It is extremely important for consumers to know who
accessed their credit files. I had another client with a credit inquiry on the Fair
Isaac Trans Union report that was not disclosed on the Trans Union consumer
disclosure. This was and maybe still is
a continuing problem. 13) All
consumer tri-merged reports are incomplete The CRAs sell tri-merged reports directly to consumers
and many resellers also provide these combined reports. I have never seen a consumer tri-merged report
containing at least most data. However, tri-merged credit reports provided to
mortgage companies contain much more data. 14) Mortgage
credit report resellers prohibit providing the mortgage credit reports to the
consumers unless the consumer paid for the report There is no reason for a loan agent not to provide the
mortgage credit report to the applicant other than to keep consumers from
knowing what CRAs report to creditors directly and to force consumers to purchase
reports from the CRAs. 15) CRAs
and resellers charge in excess of the $9 allowed by the FCRA for consumer
disclosures. 3 times $9 is $27.
However, the charges for most tri-merged reports exceed $27. ConsumerInfo.com currently charges $34.95,
Equifax charges $29.95. Consumers pay more for receiving only half the data! 16) CRAs
refuse all consumer calls unless a consumer purchased the report directly from
the CRA. After consumers paid the outrageous fees for the
tri-merged reports, they find that CRAs will require them to purchase the
reports again – directly from each CRA. The CRAs all utilize telephone systems requiring
consumers to input a report, confirmation or file # which is NOT provided on
those tri-merged reports or individually resold reports purchased from anyone
but the CRA. 17) Trans
ConsumerInfo.com purchases the credit data from Trans
Union for the tri-merged reports it resells to consumers. I noticed that many of my Trans Union accounts
on the tri-merged report were “unrated” instead of “paid as agreed.” This is important for credit scores as the
FICO scores are lowered when accounts are not reported as “paid as agreed.” My ConsumerInfo.com tri-merged report Exhibit AN-3 is
posted at http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/803/3793.html In 8/03 I advised Trans Union of the incorrect data
and I faxed the ConsumerInfo.com report to Lisa at the Trans Union “Priority
Department.” After her supervisor
reviewed the report, Lisa advised Trans Union reported the accounts accurately
as “paid as agreed” and that I needed to dispute the data with
ConsumerInfo.com. The audio file of
Lisa’s call is posted at http://www.fight-back.us/forum/index.php?showtopic=95 I requested investigation in my What is going on? Despite over a year of litigation and exhibits, the
ConsumerInfo.com tri-merged reports continued to report the accounts as
“unrated” until I was last able to review the ConsumerInfo.com report a couple
of months ago. Apparently *somebody* decided to prevent me from
accessing my reports through the PrivacyGuard credit monitoring service (utilizing
the ConsumerInfo.com reports) and new report orders result in an error message. 18) At times ALL CRAs refused to provide me with consumer disclosures Currently, Experian
is the only CRA providing me with consumer disclosures, although I can not
get the most complete Experian report, provided only to consumers who dispute online
because Experian does not allow me to dispute online. I have prepaid for credit reports with Equifax literally YEARS ago, but my
file is blocked. Numerous times have I tried to order my reports only to get an
error message. Because I first sued Trans Union in 2001 in small claims after it refused my disputes
entirely, I don’t think I’ve ever being able to order the online Trans Union reports with my FICO scores. Trans Union continues to snail mail reports
despite my repeated written requests not to do so due to security concerns. Preventing access to consumer disclosures is the usual
CRA response to consumer litigation. We can’t
litigate what we don’t know. The myFICO reports with the FICO scores list specific
score factors and provide much more data than the incomplete CRA consumer
disclosures. It is logical that CRAs subjected to lawsuits do not
want to provide the plaintiffs with the ability to document the incorrect
credit reporting as well as the resulting damages due to the lower FICO scores. Does
consumer litigation preempt the FCRA requirement for consumer disclosures? 19) Trans
It does not matter how much we are willing to pay for
credit reports, Trans Union will not accept our calls and instead transfers us
to the “Priority Department”. At Trans
Union this usually means that I have to leave a voice mail. Trans Union
requires that we sit by our phone until it is convenient for Trans Union to
return the call days later. 20) Trans
In 2001 I first found out that Trans Union had TWO
credit files for me. One file contained
only my JC Penney account, my oldest open account and therefore extremely
important for credit scores. Despite almost 3 years of litigation, Trans Union is
unable to fix this problem. I posted the report with the JC Penney account at http://www.fight-back.us/forum/index.php?showtopic=93 21) Aside
from my own experience with Trans Union, I have seen evidence of all CRAs
experiencing problems keeping exactly one credit file for each consumer. While
it is certainly understandable that problems occur, it is inexcusable that the
CRAs are NOT willing or able to resolve these problems. 22) Equifax apparently has two sets of files, one for consumers and one for creditors When
Equifax reports a deletion or update in response to the consumer dispute, it
does not necessarily mean that creditors receive the corrected report. 23) Equifax often deletes positive accounts along with derogatory accounts This
seems to be a way for Equifax to negate the positive effect of the deletions of
derogatory accounts on credit scores. One
of my clients documented in great detail how he lost numerous positive
accounts. He personally visited the Equifax CSC affiliate office and the
manager manually reinserted the deleted accounts. The manager could not explain why the
accounts were deleted, other than to state that Equifax was responsible for the
deletions. Equifax
again deleted the accounts. The local
CSC office was closed and Equifax ignored my client’s letter. It
seems like Equifax runs software that automatically deletes positive accounts
when derogatory accounts are deleted or corrected to positive accounts. 24) Experian frequently refuses consumer disputes “Previously
investigated” is the message consumers receive when they have a new dispute
even when the new dispute is totally different from a previous dispute. 25) Trans
Trans
Union implemented two techniques to refuse disputes: a) The
demand that the consumer provide a copy of the driver’s license and social
security card. In
my case they requested this information despite the fact that I had included
the tri-merged credit report with my dispute.
Many consumers don’t have a social security card and/or access to photo
copiers. Trans
Union fails to include a phone number on their decline so that consumers can
quickly resolve any identification problems or fax ID if necessary. b)
The accusation of hiring a credit repair company There
is nothing illegal about hiring someone else for credit repair as it is
specifically allowed by the Credit Repair Organization Act. While it is my opinion that almost all credit
repair companies are a total fraud, Trans Union has no legal right to refuse
these disputes. I would certainly
welcome CRA suits against credit repair companies, but to punish the consumer
by refusing the disputes is totally uncalled for. Additionally,
Trans Union declines to investigate many consumer disputes submitted directly
by the consumer who did not hire a credit repair company. Clearly,
Trans 26) The reporting of collections as open and currently delinquent accounts Collections are CLOSED accounts and should be reported
in the special “collection” section of the credit report. This is an extremely effective technique to force
consumers to pay collections that are no longer legally collectible because the
statute of limitations has expired. A 6.5 year old $5 collection will ruin the credit
scores when reported as open and currently delinquent account. 27) Creditors refuse to provide the adverse action letters required after credit declines. In addition to Target’s refusal to provide the adverse
action letter on page 2, Compass Bank refused to provide the reason for the
decline of my checking account application in 6/2001. Most recently, Ameriquest Mortgage Company litigation
manager Carol Melber committed perjury when she submitted her affidavit to the
court, claiming that I was declined because I didn’t provide W-2s and
paystubs. This case is described in
detail in my press release posted at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/9/prweb156653.htm
- accessed over 42,000 times as of The audio files proving without any doubt that the
mortgage was not declined for my failure to provide documentation are posted
with the news release. It’s highly unlikely that I am the only person who is
not provided with the true reason for the decline: the credit reporting or credit scores. C. Conclusion I could have submitted many
more pages with credit reporting problems and documentation if hadn’t ran out
of time. The regulators condone and encourage furnisher and
user noncompliance and I have little chance of prevailing in court due to my
lack of legal skills and funds. Of
course I can’t file class actions to change the horrible credit reporting
practices because I’m not an attorney. So I decided to focus on the publication of the
illegal practices and inflict maximum damages to companies like Ameriquest. I hope that the
first press release about Ameriquest results in a least $1 million in lost
revenue. Unfortunately, I can not utilize this approach for
CRAs, as I have no choice but to recommend that readers order their reports so
they can dispute the incorrect and/or incomplete data. So I will try to focus on companies like
Target, Capital One and Ameriquest as well as individual regulators and
politicians. Credit reporting serves exactly three purposes: a)
Debt collection b)
A means to charge
artificially high interest rates, fees and insurance premiums to many millions
of disadvantaged consumers. c)
A means to provide
artificially low interest rates, fees and insurance premiums to millions of
wealthy consumers The regulators’ refusal to
enforce the FCRA leaves no doubt that it is the Bush administration’s objective
to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich even if it requires illegal
activities and they certainly did a fantastic job. According to the latest Census Bureau
figures: Nearly 36 Million Americans Live in Poverty The
poverty rate has risen each year since 2000, children and racial minorities
(especially blacks) fared worse than the overall population. The rate of
child poverty rose to 17.6 percent from 16.7 percent in 2002—boosting the
number of poor children to 12.9 million. The Census Bureau does not
account for the many thousands who died due to depression and stress after many
futile attempts to correct the credit reports and increase credit scores. Mr. McAfee wrote to me on “… I enclose an advisory letter on
consumer credit reporting practices issued four years ago by the Federal
Financial Institution Examination Council, which comprises all the federal bank
supervisors, including the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. The published advisory letter
notes that some financial institutions have stopped reporting consumer credit
lines and credit balances; indeed, that some institutions are no longer
reporting any loan information on certain borrowers. The Council acknowledges that the practice
results in incomplete credit data on customers.
However, the Council does not criticize the practice as illegal and does
not direct regulated institutions to report more fully. Instead, the letter requests institutions to
be aware that credit reports are incomplete and to take actions to
"effectively identify and compensate for missing date. …" This advisory letter was issued on Clearly,
financial institutions have been concerned with inaccurate and incomplete
credit reporting and especially the refusal to report credit limits for many
years. Not only are disadvantaged consumers
exploited, but creditors are unable to properly evaluate the consumers’ credit
worthiness. Every person responsible for this outrageous
FFIEC opinion should be fired. According to Mr. McAfee, this apparently
includes the Governors of the Federal Reserve System. While I can’t see any excuse for the defense
of these illegal credit reporting practices, I will greatly appreciate your explanation
and possibly correction of Mr. McAfee's statement by I will provide this submission and my FTC
credit scoring comments to the members of the Senate Finance Committee and the
House Financial Services Committee and ask for: a) immediate enforcement of the FCRA by the
regulators b) issue of a new advisory letter stating
that from now on creditors will be held responsible for FCRA violations and
that all furnishers are to report complete account data including the credit
limits c) restitution for the many millions of Capital
One and Target customers whose credit scores were lowered due to the incomplete
reporting d) a formal and hopefully criminal
investigation of the conduct of all persons involved in this obstruction of
justice I will be happy to provide
additional documentation and answer any questions, preferably via e-mail to
christine@bayhouse.com. Sincerely, Christine Baker [deleted] Fax: 571-222-1000 Tel: 206-202-4653 c: posted at http://www.fight-back.us/FACT-Act-FRB-credit-reporting-Study-pub.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------
9/19/04 Problems I forgot to mention in my FRB submission:
"Credit counseling" - "Foreclosure started" - "Garnishment" and other derogatory notations stay on the reports until the account is deleted, which could be 20 years or more. I have personally tried to get Citibank to remove a 7+ year old credit counseling notation and they stated that they had the right to report the notation as long as they reported the account.
Aside from the deletion, it is important to date this derogatory data so that creditors can properly evaluate the applicant. Obviously it makes a difference whether a mortgage was in foreclosure last month or 5 years ago. Creditors are likely to conclude that the notation pertains to the CURRENT status when the account was recently reported.
American Agencies refused my telephone disputes, told me to dispute with Pacific Bell and also ignored my written disputes and requests for validation. This is not unusual collector conduct. Some collectors even have recorded messages on their telephone system to advise borrowers that they need to dispute with the CRAs. The Collectech recording is posted with the press release for these comments at http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/9/prweb157608.php - along with several audio files and scans are posted in the right column.
Providian required that consumers include credit reports no older than 30 days with the disputes and Wells Fargo also required consumers to provide credit reports prior to initiating an investigation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be nice to make this a more complete and organized listing of FCRA violations with links to screenshots, scans, audio files, etc. I actually have documentation for just about all violations, the problem is finding the time to organize and prepare everything for the web.
I'll try,
Christine
|
