llecs wrote:
Yes. How else would they determine credit worthiness at time of applying? A creditor is taking a risk in granting credit; they should at least have the opportunity to assess that risk.
True but I think that with that oppurtunity to assess your risk comes the obligation to show your creditworthiness so that a future creditor can properly assess the risk. Past isn't always predictive of future. We all make mistakes and eventually someone will take the risk on us again, they should report so that others see that we have taken our responsibilities and handled them better than we once did in the past.
Yes. Most companies report good and bad monthly. However, there are some small creditors out there, like medical professionals, who don't report monthly. Outside of the costs, it isn't always necessary. Most of us don't go to the doctor monthly, for example. On the flip side, if an account sours, I certainly don't want a CA to report monthly: bad or good.
Most do report monthly, but not all of them. I could see the exception with a creditor that we do not have monthly dealings with. However, accounts like utilities we deal with each month and most do not report, until you either don't pay the final bill or it somehow gets overlooked.......they report then or send to a CA to report. There you are dinged b/c of a final bill which could be a small amount (esp if you've paid a deposit) compared to your regular monthly payment. For instance, my parents had lived at the same address for over 30 years. There is 30 years of history with the telephone and electric company. Neither report. They moved across the country and apparently their deposit lacked $50 paying the final bill. When they disconnected the service, the lady said "looks like your deposit will cover it, but we'll have to get a final reading first, we might even owe you" (They were rural where you read your own meters/figured pymnt/and paid) They never received nothing in the mail. They noticed it on their CR later being reported by a CA. So now they get dinged(both of them) for a $50 collection, but no credit for the 30 year no late payment history. As for the CA reporting monthly, each time they updated they are hurting us. So, in a way they do report monthly, if they update monthly.
Absolutely. If I were a lender, I would want to know if my future customer defaulted on a loan. If they did, I would want to know how they handled themselves after the default in paying back the loan. A CA posting on a CR would show this, if properly reported. Also as a lender, I would want to see judgement info pertaining to the CA or OC. Basically, a negative listing by an OC or CA is indicative of future performance by a borrower.
The account listed by the OC would show if one defaulted, it would also show whether they paid it or not. The account listed by the OC would show how they handled the obligation after they defaulted, just the same as an account from a CA would. Judgements are not a CA, so yes if it comes to a judgement it should be there under public records while the OC still remains.
True that a negative listing CAN indicate future performance, but it doesn't always indicate the future. However, do we need both the OC and the CA reporting we defaulted and owe the account in order for the potential creditor to see this?
Yes. CRAs don't know if a CA or OC is reporting correctly or not. If I own Joe Scumb Bag Collection Agency, Inc., there is nothing stopping me from purchasing debts from utility companies, libraries or the like. In turn, I can magically turn your $5 medical co-pay into $100 with my "other" fees added on top of that. Now I am posting that you owe $100 on the $5 on your EQ. How does EQ know if I am correct or not? What I am doing may be illegal in some places, but how does EQ even know? CRAs just see a total. It is up to us to dispute and DV to make sure everything is correct on our reports. Also, don't leave oversight to the government! They'll never get around to fixing our reports or closing bad CAs.
I don't mean with the CRAs. I am talking about having to contact the CA because they failed to stop reporting or they aren't reporting correctly.
I understand that the the CRAs just keep a database of information on each person and that information is supplied by 3rd parties and the CRAs are not responsible for the information.
I'm not in favor of CAs by any means. I think there should be more oversight on the state side vs. federal. I think more fees should be imposed if there is any wrongdoing and I would support jail time for corp. officers of CAs via willful gross misconduct. I also think that FCRA and FDCPA should better defined. But I am also on the side of that business owner who took a chance and lost because of a bad debtor.
I can understand what you are saying here. However, does it really take two people reporting the same account for a business owner to decide not to take a chance? I mean seriously if you place 2 identical CR in front of a business owner with the exception one of them has a CA reporting an account that is already reported by the OC, you think he would be more likely to take a chance on one over the other? I don't think he would. The reason I say this, a few years ago when I applied for a loan, the loan officer went over my CR with me. She noticed an account that was being reported by the OC, and 2 CA. She noticed, on her own and pointed out to me, that this was the same account. She said "pay 1 of them........get 1 to show paid........and that'll satisfy that debt as far as we are concerned" Had only the OC reported, her answer would have been the same basically.....pay it and get it to show paid.
