posted on August 31, 2003 07:23:38 PM new
The government is about to pass an addendum to the Fair Credit Reporting Act that insurance companies can no longer decline applications based on one's credit.
The credit bureaus have been fined millions of dollars for not being responsive to consumers questions. Equifax is said at one time to have frequently changed its phone and fax numbers so consumers could not get through.
One of the bureaus has finally changed its inquiry policy so that multiple inquiries of the same type(auto,mortgage) in a 14 day period will now count as one inquiry.
Collection agencies can re-report a negative so that an item that should be on one's reports for seven years can stay on indefinitely. They routinely lie to consumers as to removing items when paid.
There is very little control as to who can report to the bureaus and virtually no verification as to whether an item is accurate.
If the credit bureaus deem one's disputes of reported items to be "frivilous or irrelevant" they can permanently terminate the investigation of the item.
posted on August 31, 2003 09:42:31 PM new
these credit agencys have too much power. How can they possibly re report old debts what about the stats of limitation?
posted on September 1, 2003 12:09:34 AM new
I just applied for a new mortgage and the reports the mortgage company got not only listed loans from years ago that had been satisfied but didn't list current obligations such as my current mortgage.
It was so inaccurate as to be useless to anyone who would have depended on it.
posted on September 1, 2003 07:25:51 AM new
orleans- I believe that there is no legal statute of limitations but rather a consensus among the bureaus that bankruptcies stay on for 10 years(formerly 7) and all other items stay on for 7. One of the most unfair issues is that when a collection agency buys the debt at a reduced price they can apparently report it just like a new debt.
gravid- debts up to 7 years that have been satisfied should be listed as paid accounts, not removed altogether. Many newer accounts in good standing may simply go unreported for awhile as there is no apparent obligation to report them under law.
posted on September 1, 2003 12:17:31 PM new
Federal law allows a Chapter 13 bankruptcy to remain on your credit report for seven years from the date of your discharge, or if you don't get discharged, for as long as 10 years from the date you file for bankruptcy. However, the credit reporting industry usually retains the information for only seven years from the date of your filing.
Because a Chapter 13 bankruptcy can take as long as five years to complete, that means your credit report could be affected for as long as 12 years.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
[ edited by BEAR1949 on Sep 1, 2003 12:22 PM ]
posted on September 2, 2003 04:01:49 PM new
There is some good information in this thread and a few misconceptions as well. Here's the link to the Federal Trade Commission's Q&A about the Act:
1) Debts don't magically "go away" in seven years, but the Fair Credit Reporting Act says credit agencies have to stop including them in your credit report after seven years. Many collection agencies will try to "re-age" your accounts to keep them on the report but this is illegal.
2) Consumers have a legal right to challenge the information in their files, but the three main credit bureaus make it very difficult, which is why they just got fined.
3) The "frivolous and irrelevant" thing is new and very dangerous to consumers. The bureaus are basing their increased use of this excuse on the proliferation of fake "debt counseling" centers (the ones that claim to be not-for-profit) but they are denying challenges from regular citizens as well, based on the fact that people are using form letters found on various websites. It's a real catch-22; very few people know credit-reporting law well enough to write a successful challenge letter, but if you borrow parts of a letter written by someone who actually knows the law, you get accused of using a third-party debt-repair company and your complaint gets bounced.
I know there is discussion of banning the use of credit reports in insurance, but I hadn't heard that it was likely to pass. I sure hope so. One promising development is that Congress might make copies of credit reports available at least once a year for free to consumers, which is the very least that should be done.
------------------- We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are.
------------The Talmud
posted on September 2, 2003 04:48:19 PM new
Employers have been using credit reports for years to screen applicants. Many jobs now require applicants to sign a release to get their credit report.
Ross Perot pioneered using the credit report to screen applicants when he owned EDS.
Bad credit report now = not getting the job, and many turned down applicants don't even realize the credit report caused it.
posted on September 2, 2003 07:35:08 PM new
msincognito- where does it say that third party debt repair companies' complaints get bounced? To the contrary, it is the typical consumer's dispute letter regarding a legitimate item that is likely to be labeled as frivilous or irrelevant.
posted on September 3, 2003 01:51:53 PM new
You're absolutely right, but that's an excuse they're using against individuals - falsely claiming that they are using a credit-repair organization. (One of many ways they evade the law.) Here's the text of a letter received by one Creditnet forum member from TransUnion:
We recently received a dispute regarding your credit report from a third party that we believe operates as a credit repair organization. According to the Federal Trade Commission, credit reporting agencies are not required to process disputes submitted by third parties. In addition, our experience shows that many credit repair organizations dispute accurate information or submit irrevelant disputes. We have reasonably determined that the dispute submitted on your behalf is frivolous or irrevelant. For these reasons, we will not take action on the dispute.
They were responding to a dispute the guy had laboriously prepared and sent in himself - not through a credit repair agency. The trick is that if they say they think you're being frivolous, they don't have to investigate. As if they did anyway. Other posts on that board have linked the "frivolous" complaint to the use of pre-written form letters that you can find on that site and others.
You can find all kinds of credit-bureau tactics at the Creditnet board. Another nasty trick is to simply slap "verified" on the account - without really investigating - and then forevermore say "Sorry, we verified that. Take it up with the creditor!"
