topic Re: Ethics or not in General Credit Topics

Ethics or not

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:33:41 GMT

Why are we soooooo concerned with ethics on this board? Since when are the lending institutions, collection departments, collection agencies, lawyers, and/or judges worried about ETHICS when it comes to YOUR credit report??? Sure, there are nice people who work in these fields who would give you a break for one missed payment, however the vast majority of them could care less about you or your reports. Each and every one of them will use the LAW when it comes down to it. Is it ethical for a company such as you insurance provider to pull your credit bureau and then not report that you have met the obligation of paying your bill on time? Is it ETHICAL to perform an action that could harm someone's credit without them doing ANYTHING to restore the harm done? There are people here who have complained about the injustices done to them by CCCs, CAs, CRAs, etc.. These injustices happen because the agencies can and do screw up and, they don't have to do a thing about it LEGALLY unless YOU find the error and request that it be fixed. That sometimes doesn't even happen. If you screw up they will NAIL YOU TO THE CROSS AND CRUCIFY YOU with the LAW! They won't be concerned with ethics. Why should we be willing to afford them something that they won't give us? I think we can all agree that the ethical thing to do when someone is down is to give them a hand and help them. I ask you, will they do that for us? NO! Can ANYONE here tell me an ILLEGAL way to have derogs removed from their credit report? I've been thinking about this all day. Apart from having friends that work at all 3 of the CRAs, I don't think it's possible. The whole point behind ALL of us being here is to obtain GOOD credit. That won't happen without paying your bills on time and biting off more than you can chew. Let's see.......It takes me 1-4 years (and in some people's cases up to 7) to build GOOD credit. I take all that credit, run up a bunch of bills and then default. Now, I've got some repo man at my door trying to take away my Lexus that I've been paying on for 3 years. Claim bankrupcy? I don't think so. Telephone conversation: "I need to talk to your mother/father. Police." "Hi, this is (insert your name here). What is the trouble?" "Yes, this is (insert the name of collector here) with (insert collection agency name here). I'm calling about the past due amount of $____." "Little (insert your child's name here) said you were the POLICE!" "No, I said 'I need to talk to your mother/father, PLEASE,' he/she must have heard me wrong." I've gotten that call. Is it ethical? NO! If we get a traffic ticket for going 90mph in a 45mph zone AND YOU KNOW YOU DID IT. Is it ethical to defend yourself? NO, but it's perfectly legal. Can anyone here (including our moderator) say that they wouldn't defend themselves in THAT situation?

Message Edited by billiards on 07-21-2007 01:33 PM

Re: Ethics or not

fused — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:35:41 GMT

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/fico/board/message?board.id=generalcredit&message.id=16881&query.id=11905#M16881

Re: Ethics or not

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:39:41 GMT

Trust me, I've read it. I ask the question before. Why are so many here concerned with the "ethical" thing to do?

Message Edited by billiards on 07-21-2007 01:39 PM

Re: Ethics or not

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:43:22 GMT

While I agree with your premise that CAs often operate outside of the law, I would also assert that just because the guy at the CA is a jerk- I am not.

To be perfectly honest, I am in my situation soley by my hand. I couldn't care less whether some pimply-faced moron at Acme Credit Hounds calls me every name in the book. Irritating? Yes! Often outrageous? Hell Yes! But I just picture a little barking chihuahua when I get some jackass like that on the phone - all HE can do is his annoying barking.

And yes - the police tactic was obviously hatched by someone with no soul.

But as far as disputing things on my CR - I only dispute what I THINK shouldn't be there. If they can prove it to me, well ok then. I'll pay - but you can bet your sweet bippy: No PFD - No money. Period.

I had another post regarding a mortgage I am holding - and the folks just decided that since he went back to school, and since she accidentally got pregnant, and since their oldest son just went to college - etc, etc - Well, I should just understand that they don't want to make a house payment right now. As an after thought, I look up the state court dockets and find out that -Hey! Guess what? - They do this to seems like everybody. I don't call them, I send everything in writing. From an attorney. I am ethical - as a borrower and as a lender.

Re: Ethics or not

fused — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:47:24 GMT

billiards wrote:
Trust me, I've read it. I ask the question before. Why are so many here concerned with the "ethical" thing to do?

Message Edited by billiards on 07-21-2007 01:39 PM

It's just a matter of FICO House Rules but I see where you're coming from.

Re: Ethics or not

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:53:22 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
Trust me, I've read it. I ask the question before. Why are so many here concerned with the "ethical" thing to do?

Message Edited by billiards on 07-21-2007 01:39 PM

Because after all is said and done I believe I will reap the physical and spiritual consequences of what I do...for good or evil, right or wrong.

Now about that CA impersonating the police...if I were you, next time they do that, as soon as the conversation ends, call the police. Ask them if they called you. Of course, they're going to say no...and most likely they will ask for information on who did call you and claim to be a police officer. Police HATE to be impersonated, for both safety and ego reasons. So you might be able to legitimately and lawfully bring down a lot of heat on the CA. Impersonating a law enforcement officer IS a crime.

Re: Ethics or not

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:58:35 GMT

I didn't say that all of the people that work in those fields are unethical. Just most of them.

My last question in my post. Having to do with a traffic ticket, is it ethical to defend yourself in a court of law when you know darn good and well that you are guilty of the offense?

I say OF COURSE it's unethical. That doesn't mean that we won't try.

The argument here is weather or not to dispute things on the reports. Is it unethical to request that they prove what you KNOW to be true? Most here would say no, it's not unethical.

If there is a perfectly legal means by which you can have derogs removed....why not do it?

Someone else recently posted that they had over 50 derogs removed by some law firm. By his own admission, these were legitimate. Is it ethical to ask for these to be removed?

The whole point behind the Credit Reporting Agencies is to allow lenders to look at the account/payment history of a particular individual. Requesting/asking/having ANYTHING removed from these reports that does, in fact, belong there is unethical. How can we congratulate someone, on one hand, for having these items removed and then on the other say that discussing things that are deemed "unethical" is a violation of the TOS?

It sounds like hypocracy to me.

Re: Ethics or not

MidnightVoice — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:09:40 GMT

Ethics is relative.

The people who own, run and pay for this board have the absolute and total right to determine what happens here, and as they are a company, they should ensure that nothing illegal is done here or suggested here. I might or might not agree with their decisions, but by signing on I did agree to abide by their rules. So I will

Re: Ethics or not

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:17:36 GMT

I came to the same conclusion earlier today.

Ethics is relative and subjective.

For the most part, I have not seen many posts removed.

I have, however, seen people scolded for "unethical suggestions".

Legal issues...By all means...PULL THE POST.

Ethical issues...we've all got our own set of morals and ethics.

By the way, I do still appreciate all the good advice I've received here. My scores are up by 90+ points in exactly 1 month. Largely due to you guys!

Re: Ethics or not

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:41:43 GMT

I think the whole credit scoring and reporting system needs to be reformed, at several levels.

First, I think a CRA should be required to mail proof of an item to a consumer at the time the item is entered onto the consumer's credit report. This includes the original instrument that resulted in the debt being incurred. Any item on a CR would have to include the original creditor, the contact information for the current creditor, the account number, the balance, and the type of debt. Double-listing of a bill would be eliminated. If you owed $379 to the power company, and the power company charged off the account to a collection agency, the entry for the power company would be eliminated and replaced with the CA's entry.

This would prevent about nine-tenths of disputes, and substantially decrease inaccuracies in credit reports. Some shady collection agency couldn't just phone a CRA and say, "John Doe owes Mountain Dental some money," and put something on John's CR. The CRAs could essentially turn to questionable CAs and say, "we've upped our standards, now up yours!" If an item was on your report, odds would be about 30 to 1 that the item was accurate. This would make it more difficult by far for people to abuse the dispute process, while making the process itself unnecessary in the vast majority of cases.

Second, the reporting and scoring system needs to be overhauled to make it at least a bit more friendly to people trying to settle past debts. FICO should decrease the hit the consumer takes for charge-offs and collections that are paid. Right now consumers are obsessed with nuking baddies off their CRs because they have no other way to deal with baddies that will actually make any difference to their credit scores. Collection agencies should have to report a payment to all CRAs within seven business days--no exceptions.

Third...people in this country need to manage their money better, and not rack up huge bills in the first place. Now I'll concede in some cases people go into the red on medical bills, and that is at least substantially beyond the control of some people. (Of course, we can't have a national health care system or we would be impoverished, diseased and starving like everyone in Europe, right?) ;-) But in many others, people treat credit cards like cash assets. Wrong.

Re: Ethics or not

MidnightVoice — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:46:57 GMT

TheNewWorldMan wrote:
now up yours

I agree with that remark

Re: Ethics or not

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:55:27 GMT

My whole issue is whether it is ethical or not to penalize persons who have made some credit mistakes, missed the payment date by 15 seconds before close of the business day, was dead or otherwise occupied and couldn't make the payment have to suffer for 7 years of that negative sting? That is a long time and sure by then if you are not insane like we are now from this forum making sure that we are not late, chances are you are going to be late again, get sick, get laid off, or whatever and the cycle will continue.

Re: Ethics or not

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:58:16 GMT

In my case I have no doubt that the huge amount of crap I piled up upon myself

is soley my fault, I have had CA'S pulling all kinds crap on me especially since

I have initiated the repayment processes and all of a sudden I got these clowns

coming out of the woodwork calling in laws numbers whom I havn't ever lived at.

I have to think that there motives are strictly greed and they will stop at nothing to

get there money, I have talked to and paid off accounts with decent creditors who

after payment took off the negative issues from my reports as soon as it was cleared

and I have had others who were just arrogant and ignorant and would not sway one way

or the other so I will dispute those numbnuts till the cows come home cause thats there

game that there playing so there are no ethics involved in that situation they threw those out

when they started calling people who have nothing to do with my debt and have treated me

in the most disrespectful manner all for a few hundred or thousand dollers..

I figure some of it is ethical and some of it you take the gloves off and duke it out as best you can

and in each situation it is different but I will use whatever tool that is at my disposal because

ethics is not going to clear up my credit and the goodwill of every single CA out there is not going to come out even if I have paid it all back wich I just about have done, they need a push and I will shove

a little bit too...

Re: Ethics or not

MidnightVoice — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:03:38 GMT

The FICO score predicts the likelyhood of someone repaying a newly incurred debt. It is statistical, and based on what people with a certain credit profile have usually done, and how well they have repaid debt. So one 6.5 year old 30 day late will not affect the score very much.

But a bunch of 90 day lates for the lasy 3 years will.

It DOES NOT take into account the individual, it can't, it is statistics. But it is pretty succesful at predicting the average. The only way to refine it for an individual is for a real live person to talk to that individual and make a choice that the individual is better than their score would suggest

Re: Ethics or not

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:55:55 GMT

You have some great ideas. Maybe we should all be proactive and write our congressman or congresswoman and get the ball rolling on making positive changes to a falty system.

Re: Ethics or not

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:57:51 GMT

Personally, I feel once a person pays a collection or chargeoff account in full, the TL should be deleted. Listing an unpaid on a CR is a good method of letting lenders know of past problems. However, once a person takes care of their obligation there is no reason to keep the listing.

Re: Ethics or not

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:20:01 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
You have some great ideas. Maybe we should all be proactive and write our congressman or congresswoman and get the ball rolling on making positive changes to a falty system.

It would be easier (and more fun) to try and move the Earth out of its orbit than to try and get Congress to do anything different.

Re: Ethics or not

MercyMe — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:31:13 GMT

TheNewWorldMan wrote:
I think the whole credit scoring and reporting system needs to be reformed, at several levels.

First, I think a CRA should be required to mail proof of an item to a consumer at the time the item is entered onto the consumer's credit report. This includes the original instrument that resulted in the debt being incurred. Any item on a CR would have to include the original creditor, the contact information for the current creditor, the account number, the balance, and the type of debt. Double-listing of a bill would be eliminated. If you owed $379 to the power company, and the power company charged off the account to a collection agency, the entry for the power company would be eliminated and replaced with the CA's entry.

This would prevent about nine-tenths of disputes, and substantially decrease inaccuracies in credit reports. Some shady collection agency couldn't just phone a CRA and say, "John Doe owes Mountain Dental some money," and put something on John's CR. The CRAs could essentially turn to questionable CAs and say, "we've upped our standards, now up yours!" If an item was on your report, odds would be about 30 to 1 that the item was accurate. This would make it more difficult by far for people to abuse the dispute process, while making the process itself unnecessary in the vast majority of cases.

Second, the reporting and scoring system needs to be overhauled to make it at least a bit more friendly to people trying to settle past debts. FICO should decrease the hit the consumer takes for charge-offs and collections that are paid. Right now consumers are obsessed with nuking baddies off their CRs because they have no other way to deal with baddies that will actually make any difference to their credit scores. Collection agencies should have to report a payment to all CRAs within seven business days--no exceptions.

Third...people in this country need to manage their money better, and not rack up huge bills in the first place. Now I'll concede in some cases people go into the red on medical bills, and that is at least substantially beyond the control of some people. (Of course, we can't have a national health care system or we would be impoverished, diseased and starving like everyone in Europe, right?) ;-) But in many others, people treat credit cards like cash assets. Wrong.

Double high-five plus five more NWM!! Who do we write? Where do we sign? Who do we lobby? When and where do we begin?

Re: Ethics or not

MercyMe — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:34:12 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:
You have some great ideas. Maybe we should all be proactive and write our congressman or congresswoman and get the ball rolling on making positive changes to a falty system.

It would be easier (and more fun) to try and move the Earth out of its orbit than to try and get Congress to do anything different.

Indeed ... even if you were to get it past the doors and onto the floor, it would take 10-12 years to debate.

Re: Ethics or not

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:09:44 GMT

@MercyMe wrote:

Double high-five plus five more NWM!! Who do we write? Where do we sign? Who do we lobby? When and where do we begin?

Thanks for the compliment...but the answer is we don't. We're not a multibillion dollar corporation, so no one in Congress cares what we think. Instead, we wait in the shadows for the system to collapse--it's well on its way--and when it falls apart we emerge and create a new system according to our will.