...Chase deserves to be slapped.

[Hopelives2]

---

@drsmith wrote:

So you wanted chase to "unsee" the original report they pulled? The way I see it, you authorized them to pull another bureau in addition to the information they already had. T

---

That raises an interesting question though:

If creditors use former information that they already had, what would be the purpose of trying to clean up reports more quickly?

For instance:

If one has a Ch 7 bk that is going to be 10 years old on August 1, 2011, and the individual decides to apply for AMEX ahead of the August 1, 2011 date.  Said individual is denied because of BK at outset.

Applicant decides to apply after bk falls off on August 2, 2011 (yes, I realize it is not always that quick to disappear off the CRs, but for purposes of explaining I'm using that date).

In affect, what you are thinking is that AMEX would have the pre-August 1, 2011 report as well as the one post August 2, 2011 that no longer shows the bk?  So Amex would use former information to deny since they are NOT bk friendly?

That rationale feels a ltitle flawed.  I see your point in Revel's thoughts, I'm simply thinking that the creditors don't have time or bandwidth to keep all applicants' files on hand.

[drsmith]

---

@Hopelives2 wrote:

---

@drsmith wrote:

So you wanted chase to "unsee" the original report they pulled? The way I see it, you authorized them to pull another bureau in addition to the information they already had. T

---

That raises an interesting question though:

If creditors use former information that they already had, what would be the purpose of trying to clean up reports more quickly?

For instance:

If one has a Ch 7 bk that is going to be 10 years old on August 1, 2011, and the individual decides to apply for AMEX ahead of the August 1, 2011 date.  Said individual is denied because of BK at outset.

Applicant decides to apply after bk falls off on August 2, 2011 (yes, I realize it is not always that quick to disappear off the CRs, but for purposes of explaining I'm using that date).

In affect, what you are thinking is that AMEX would have the pre-August 1, 2011 report as well as the one post August 2, 2011 that no longer shows the bk?  So Amex would use former information to deny since they are NOT bk friendly?

That rationale feels a ltitle flawed.  I see your point in Revel's thoughts, I'm simply thinking that the creditors don't have time or bandwidth to keep all applicants' files on hand.

---

He recon'd an existing application. I think Chase would have seen it differently if he had completely reapplied and they pulled another bureau and only that bureau

But who knows

[Hopelives2]

---

drsmith wrote:

He recon'd an existing application.

Ah.  That makes total sense why they denied him and used both CRs.

[Anonymous]

Hope:  Your hypothetical breaks down because if what you suggest were possible, one could never get credit from a merchant (not even in the year 2040) because of that one tainted entry from five or ten years ago.  I don't think banks are interested in what happened to you if it is old enough to be dropped from your credit report unless whatever you did affected them (and we've seen recently where some folks got credit with Amex after a c/o with them years ago.)  Plus, the statutory purpose of bankruptcy is to "rehabilitate the debtor" which could never happen if you could never recover from a past mistake.

Wasn't the purpose of Chase's pulling of the OP's credit file to determine whether to grant credit to someone who requested credit?  The fact that one might insist that a creditor pull one cra file and not another might seem suspicious to a lender but in any event the lender can pull all three files afaik.  And say there's a fifty point spread in credit scores among the three cras (maybe 670-720?)  Does the lender consider the applicant to have fair credit (670) or good credit (720?)  Or, maybe some lenders (Chase?) like to average credit scores because of the variance?  Or, maybe they see a 670 but--intending to offer credit if at all possible--check the other two files in the hope that they will indicate a stronger degree of creditworthiness?  If that were true (and I have no way of knowing whether it is), they are actually bending over backwards to help someone.

In any event, we cannot dictate to a lender which file they must pull.

[Anonymous]

Or am I confused?

[drsmith]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

In any event, we cannot dictate to a lender which file they must pull.

---

That's my point

Chase was kind enough to pull the report from the CRA their potential customer requested. Then they graciously approved his application after initally determining he wasn't creditworthy in their eyes. I don't see where Chase did a thing wrong. In fact, they seemed to be pretty understanding and helpful. 

[ReVeLaTeD]

---

@drsmith wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

In any event, we cannot dictate to a lender which file they must pull.

---

That's my point

Chase was kind enough to pull the report from the CRA their potential customer requested. Then they graciously approved his application after initally determining he wasn't creditworthy in their eyes. I don't see where Chase did a thing wrong. In fact, they seemed to be pretty understanding and helpful. 

---

You're compensating.

You pull ONE credit report.  That credit report is what is used.  If you allow pulling of another report THAT report becomes the ONLY DATA THAT MATTERS unless it's clear upfront that multiple reports are pulled and considered together, i.e. a mortgage loan.

Some of you don't know, but I've worked in loan processing, doing credit screening.  We run a report, either a merged or single bureau, commonly a single bureau.  The applicant has derogs, they get cleaned up.  We run a new report.  The new report is clean, we process based on the CLEAN REPORT.  Or the applicant asks us to run a different bureau.  We run that bureau, it's spotless.  We process based on THAT REPORT. 

This notion of using credit information that has been rendered outdated by a new report to determine terms even though the newer information has revealed a better credit situation is faulty.  You can compensate by saying "they cut him a break" - the reality is, THE TERMS SHOULD BE BASED ON THE EQUIFAX REPORT AS THE REPORT OF RECORD.  The previous report was rendered outdated the moment Equifax returned data.

I have three additional steps.  I've already taken the first.

[Anonymous]

---

@ReVeLaTeD wrote:

---

@drsmith wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

In any event, we cannot dictate to a lender which file they must pull.

---

That's my point

Chase was kind enough to pull the report from the CRA their potential customer requested. Then they graciously approved his application after initally determining he wasn't creditworthy in their eyes. I don't see where Chase did a thing wrong. In fact, they seemed to be pretty understanding and helpful. 

---

You're compensating.

You pull ONE credit report.  That credit report is what is used.  If you allow pulling of another report THAT report becomes the ONLY DATA THAT MATTERS unless it's clear upfront that multiple reports are pulled and considered together, i.e. a mortgage loan.

Some of you don't know, but I've worked in loan processing, doing credit screening.  We run a report, either a merged or single bureau, commonly a single bureau.  The applicant has derogs, they get cleaned up.  We run a new report.  The new report is clean, we process based on the CLEAN REPORT.  Or the applicant asks us to run a different bureau.  We run that bureau, it's spotless.  We process based on THAT REPORT. 

This notion of using credit information that has been rendered outdated by a new report to determine terms even though the newer information has revealed a better credit situation is faulty.  You can compensate by saying "they cut him a break" - the reality is, THE TERMS SHOULD BE BASED ON THE EQUIFAX REPORT AS THE REPORT OF RECORD.  The previous report was rendered outdated the moment Equifax returned data.

I have three additional steps.  I've already taken the first.

---

So under your theory even the worst credit deadbeat can get new credit as long as they can 1) recon and 2) keep at least one CRA clean.

Good luck tilting at windmills.

[minimock]

I guess its a mindset. It all comes down to how you look at things.

So you have to ask the big question. Are Credit Cards a right or a privilege. For me the answer is easy. They are a privilege, which can easily be taken away for bad behavior LOL.

I just got straight again after another divorce and cant afford to start over anymore LOL.

I wouldnt have loaned me money 7 years ago, let alone ask for a loan from anyone else.

You have to either pay it or wait for it to fall off. May not be fair, but as my Pappy used to say........."Son Life is not fair" LOL

[Anonymous]

---

@minimock wrote:

I guess its a mindset. It all comes down to how you look at things.

So you have to ask the big question. Are Credit Cards a right or a privilege. For me the answer is easy. They are a privilege, which can easily be taken away for bad behavior LOL.

I just got straight again after another divorce and cant afford to start over anymore LOL.

I wouldnt have loaned me money 7 years ago, let alone ask for a loan from anyone else.

You have to either pay it or wait for it to fall off. May not be fair, but as my Pappy used to say........."Son Life is not fair" LOL

---

For a brief second I thought you were going to phrase that concept a bit differently.