Would you pay for “on-on-one” dispute resolution time? I would..

[Anonymous]

Would you pay for “on-on-one” dispute resolution time?  I would..

The more I read about the dispute process, the more itsounds like a crapshoot... Disputes are received and the investigation processboils down to an e-Oscar check and the mood of the person who receives yourletter.  30+ days for a response..   Guilty until proven innocent and little tono feedback for the most part.

 Since the bureaus arein this for profit, why not offer “on-on-one” dispute time with an actualrepresentative on a fee basis?  I wouldgladly pay $10-$30 to be able to speak with someone directly about an item onmy report, fax in supporting documentation, 3-way call creditors and getresolution on the spot or at least quickly. It makes good business sense I would think. 

[Anonymous]

Seems to me that that would be a form of customer service.

If only these companies looked at consumers as "customers".  Their customers are really the banks, and they serve those customers quite well. 

Congress had to pass a law to even allow us to look at these reports.  The fact that Congress didn't pass a law requiring access to the FICO score is why we now cannot see the EX score.  I think any of kind of real process for dispute resolution will also have to be legislated.  Unfortunate that these companies don't run their businesses in a way that doesn't require legislation to change how they deal with consumers.

[Anonymous]

That’s just the thing..  They have a HUGE customer base that they can market to, just like with this MyFico site..  That is a steady revenue stream for them now.   Why not expand their business with profitable services that millions of potential customers want?  They have a captive audience.    Charging for Interaction is better than losing out on profit and making people angry enough that there is no outlet for them to work with the bureaus that they lobby congress for action.     This is a Win-Win for EVERYONE.  

Message Edited by FromPlattoPlace on 09-09-2009 07:02 AM