The CRA's have a class action lawsuit against them becaus...

[Anonymous]

I recently read that they (Capital One) will be reporting credit limits by the end of the year.  This is good news, and bad.  This is good news if you have never used most of your credit line, or gone over limit.  This is bad news if you have had high utilization or have been over your limit as it may lower your score.  The non reporting of credit lines is great for many, so maybe everyone shouldn't complain....

[Anonymous]

---

trying_hard wrote:

I recently read that they (Capital One) will be reporting credit limits by the end of the year.

---

That's been floating around a couple of years. I daresay Cap 1 won't start reporting CLs unless and until a Federal Circuit Court finds them in violation of FCRA for not accurately and completely reporting.

[Anonymous]

I understand and respect what you are saying, but there is no violation of FCRA with what they are currently doing.  Many people throw compliance verbiage around, but it is not referenced properly as people cannot just take information from regulations and apply it as they feel fit. 

I know that they will begin reporting as it was recently provided by a reputable source.  I just hope everyone doesn't start complaining when the credit lines are reported.  I guess that poor company will be damned if they do and damned if they don't.  Hopefully, everyone will eventually get what they want.

[Anonymous]

---

trying_hard wrote:

I understand and respect what you are saying, but there is no violation of FCRA with what they are currently doing.

---

Unless you're a federal judge, and the federal judge overseeing the case, it's not up to you. I didn't attend law school, but I can read the statutes for myself. If you can show what they are reporting isn't complete, and it's harming you in some way, then I think one has grounds for a lawsuit against Cap 1.

In order to prove noncompliance, one would, I suspect, need to dispute with the CRAs that the Cap 1 TL was inaccurate. If the CRAs verified, then one could dispute directly with the furnisher under §623. If Cap 1 refused to report the CL, then methinks one has them dead to rights in violation of willful noncompliance by not accurately and completely reporting.

With the CRAs, it would be a bit tougher to show. One could, I suppose, dispute with the CRAs, and include a copy of one's CC statement showing the CL. If they refused to update the TL, then the CRAs as well might be on the hook for willful noncompliance.

[Anonymous]

I absolutely see what you are saying, and had no intention of making you upset.  I just wanted to point out that this is in fact accurate, why have they been reporting high balances since they were Signet?  For a company as large as they are, it seems that they would have changed their policies if they were in violation for such a long time.  The FED would have shut them down a long time ago if that were the case...  I don't want to defend any financial institutions as they are taking my money as well, but I just wanted to see if anyone else views it this way.

I am definately not a federal judge, but I do have a pre law degree, and I work within the realm of compliance on a daily basis.  I don't have all the answers, but it is fun to play devils advocate on issues such as this.   

[Anonymous]

My only upset is that I don't have idiot CAs calling me today with threats and harassment. Had I known then what I know now, I would have long since made it to the FICO 700 club. If there's a JDB Do Call List out there, I wanna be on it.

Accurate alone is not enough. Accuracy and completeness, accurate and complete, are phrases used throughout the FCRA.

Cap 1 operates on the borderline of predatory CC practices--perhaps over the border. There have been a number of articles on their practices. Relying upon fees, issuing multiple low CL CCs rather than 1 higher CL CC to increase annual fees, and not reporting CLs so their subprime customers who don't know how to game Cap 1 remain stuck in subprime territory.

As for the Fed shutting down Cap 1, oh please. This is but one example of Congressional hearings on the subject. Federal agencies responsible in this area point fingers at one another and take no action.

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/fico/board/message?board.id=generalcredit&message.id=15739

Sen. Levin had hearings about CC practices a few weeks back. He's introduced legislation, but I don't see it going anywhere.

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/fico/board/message?board.id=generalcredit&message.id=5937

[Anonymous]

Again, it was not my intention to upset you.  I was just trying to help and explain that the credit bureau reporting looks to be getting better for this particular company..... 

[Anonymous]

I don't see that I'm the one upset, and I don't yet see any reason to believe Cap 1 will change their ways short of a successful lawsuit. Subprimes is where Cap 1 specializes, and not reporting CLs only helps them maintain their subprime CC holders.

[Anonymous]

Makes perfect sense to me. Like I have said several times. Crap on will not report limits until they are forced too.

---

Noah_Bodie wrote:

masdeocho wrote:

CapOne has no legal obligation to report info to CRAs, only to correct wrong info it previously reported.  So it has no duty to report CLs to any CRA.

Accuracy and completeness matter. If the information reported isn't accurate or complete, then the furnisher (Cap 1 in this case) is in violation. I think a layperson could easily make the case that failing to report CLs makes the TL incomplete and harms the consumer.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=15&sec=1681s-2

15 USC 1681s-2

(b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute
(1) In general
After receiving notice pursuant to section 1681i(a)(2) of this title of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall -
(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;
(B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 1681i(a)(2) of this title;
(C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency;
(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis; and
(E) if an item of information disputed by a consumer is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1), for purposes of reporting to a consumer reporting agency only, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation promptly -
(i) modify that item of information;
(ii) delete that item of information; or
(iii) permanently block the reporting of that item of information.

---

[Anonymous]

---

trying_hard wrote:

I absolutely see what you are saying, and had no intention of making you upset.  I just wanted to point out that this is in fact accurate, why have they been reporting high balances since they were Signet?  For a company as large as they are, it seems that they would have changed their policies if they were in violation for such a long time.  The FED would have shut them down a long time ago if that were the case... 

---

The financial institutions have a mighty strong lobbying force.  So I can't see the law changing to force CapOne to report any time soon.  If what they are and have been doing is illegal (by not providing accurate + complete info by withholding CLs), they have absolutely no commercial reason to stop doing it until a Fed judge says so.