No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
soalsrfr wrote:You just made my point...that statement was intentional to see how you would respond.
soalsrfr wrote:Our company processes more that 1,000,000 files per year and we see that 60-70% have errors ranging from incorrect late payments to erroneously reported activity which not only negatively impact the customer's scores but also causes information to remain on their files longer than is permissible under the FCRA.
soalsrfr wrote:Unfortunately, it still boils down to the consumer having to dispute the items to hopefully have the information reported correctly. In this manner, I reference the FCRA as a guide particularly for creditors as it shows just how serious these entities take the regulations.
soalsrfr wrote:This is truly what the creditor hopes for in most situations. If they can get contact from the consumer, it increases their likelihood to collect. Go ahead and threaten to sue...but how many times do you think they hear this?
soalsrfr wrote:Of course when you make the proper dispute to the bureaus, all the creditor have to say is "oops, we're sorry we made a mistake." But again, that is only if the dispute is done properly. How many times have you seen people dispute through the proper channels and the bureaus return a result of "verified by creditor"?
soalsrfr wrote:Are you aware that consumer disputes at the bureau are drilled down to a code? This code denotes the dispute inquiry that the bureau sends to the creditor.
soalsrfr wrote:I is amazing how the FRCA is supposed to be LAW but it is still to difficult for most consumers to get a simple incorrect item fixed.
My point was as easily as I made that mistake, creditors do the same with individuals credit.
cheddar wrote:Nothing about my reaction to your feigned ignorance made your point.
I responded the way anyone would.
I corrected you and expressed my surprise at your lack of knowledge in the area, given that you profess this field to be your career. How would you expect anyone to respond?
What exactly did my response, or that little stunt, prove? That people sometimes make mistakes that aren't really mistakes?
@Anonymous wrote:Again...the consumer has to initiate the dispute properly and yes even though resources are available, most consumers are not versed in credit, FCRA requirements, Fair Debt Collection requirements to make a dispute that will resolve the issue on the first go around.
Yes, you do have to dispute to initiate an investigation. That takes about five minutes.
@Anonymous wrote:Yes, all of the above is true and I agree. Unfortunately when companies like MEDCLR/NCO Financial who get sued and loose a $4 million+ law suit for improper reporting practices, then go right back to reporting the exact same way. It shows just how proactive the FCRA is applied. The FCRA is a set of laws that the creditors know how to manipulate. They have been doing this much longer than consumers have had access to monitor their credit. They know what to do to get the results they want, regardless of it being legal or not.
I don't doubt this is the case. It does not surprise me that creditors sometimes intentionally report incorrect information in order to initiate contact. If you spend any time at all on these boards you will see that it is often advised to wait until the SOL is up before initiating any dispute process.
In any case, by the time the CRTP is up and it is appropriate to dispute an account as obsolete, the debt has most likely been sold to a JDB, or at least a CA. Most OCs won't hold on to an uncollectible debt for the entire length of the CRTP. This brings the FDCPA into play as well.
So, what it seems you are saying is that JDBs and CAs are willing to commit violations of the FDCPA on the outside chance that they may be able to initiate contact and collect on a debt that is outside of SOL.
This is not news.
Also, companies that do this do get sued. Some of them have even been put out of business due to FDCPA violations.
@chedder wrote:And it seems like you are all about winning...you must be a lawyer. What you don't realize is that I never disputed what any FCRA laws or how they are supposed to affect an indviduals ability to make sure information is correct on their file. I only stated that the laws are there but still don't make it easy for consumers. Also, I stated that the FCRA does not force the bureaus to purge based on the DOFD.
Even if the creditor responds with "oops, we're sorry we made a mistake," then I win, because it means my tradeline will be deleted because it is obsolete, which is all I wanted in the first place. I'm not sure how that supports your point at all.
"Verified by creditor" has nothing to do with whether the dispute is done properly. In any case, it is not difficult to inititate a dispute properly.
@chedder wrote:Yes, it is amazing. But consumers have resources available to them to use against entities who refuse to follow the law. Are you suggesting we should just roll over and take it
This discussion started because you didn't believe the DOFD was the proper date to use to determine CRTP.This discussion begain with me stating that the bureaus use the DLA to calculate purge dates as your were giving misinformation to this individual. I never disputed what should be used only what the bureaus do use.After I cited FCRA, you seem to have changed your mind on that, and now your argument is that it doesn't matter what they're supposed to do; all that matters is what they do as a matter of fact.I have not changed my standing on how the purge dates are calculated by the bureaus. And yes, the FCRA is supposed to govern these entities and the bureaus do a fairly decent job with the data collection but the creditors truly cause more problems with erroneous information than the consumer realizes.The bureaus implement automactic systems to purge old information, which occurs in 7 years for derog accounts and judgements within their system to be on the safe side to comply with the FCRA requirements, but the date you were telling people is not the date that the system uses.People can and do get this DLA information corrected to set the purge dates properly but it is not a simple cut and dry dispute as you make it appear. You continue to be nieve in this thinking and I will continue to tell people the truth about what the bureaus and creditors do.In addition, you say, it's not worth it to fight them because it will be either futile or counterproductive because once they've initiated contact with you, they may be able to collect in spite of their violations and SOL.You again make assumptions that are not the case. I never stated that fighting the information was not worth it. I did say that the disputes have to be done properly to acheive the results that are beneficial and correct for the consumer.Is that about right? If I'm misstating your position please let me know, because that's what I'm getting from your post.You preaty much have my position incorrect.
Message Edited by soalsrfr on 02-23-2008 08:12 AM
edited to reduce font size on link so that thread wouldn't be unmanageably wide, and to get all the white spaces out. No text was deleted.
Message Edited by haulingthescoreup on 02-23-2008 01:41 PM
sh9730 wrote:One last thing about a post from page 1 of this thread about how EQ reports. I have daily pull with them and just reconfirmed. They show DOFD on their report, but when it shows on MYFICO they convert that SAME date to DOLA. I confirmed this not 5 minutes ago.
Bumping to get thread back on track. I hope that hgolf will post back with this, as I am trying to learn all this stuff myself.
@fused wrote:Maybe I can help here. As for the OP's large point increase, this does not surprise me. I have some questions before I jump in though.hgolf1848:
- Are you sure the derog trade line is being reported by the original creditor and not a CA.- Is it a CC charge-off? If not what is it? What year? thanks