Law Mandating Which CRA the Bank Will Pull

[DI]

Do you all think there should be a law that mandate creditors to disclose which CRA they will pull during the application process?  The name of the credit bureau should be listed on each application for credit.  Many of us already been able to figure it out with some creditors by sharing who pulled what through various forums.

I know passing this type of law may cause more creditors to pull all 3 reports.  But I think it will better serve consumers if we know beforehand which credit report the bank will pull. 

[trumpet-205]

I think this will cause unfairness. As each of your credit report does vary somewhat.

[DI]

---

@trumpet-205 wrote:

I think this will cause unfairness. As each of your credit report does vary somewhat.

---

If a particular credit report isn't good, one can go to the next creditor who uses a different report. 

[UFGuy2006]

Such a law would force all banks to pull like Capital One (all 3 bureaus) and average the score.

[Anonymous]

While it would be nice, I'm sure it would open up some avenues for abuse. It would be nice being able to apply based on whichever report is the most favorable, though - or at least be able to balance out the inquiries between the 3 CRAs, so they don't all end up on EQ.

[Anonymous]

---

@DI wrote:

Do you all think there should be a law that mandate creditors to disclose which CRA they will pull during the application process?  The name of the credit bureau should be listed on each application for credit.  Many of us already been able to figure it out with some creditors by sharing who pulled what through various forums.

I know passing this type of law may cause more creditors to pull all 3 reports.  But I think it will better serve consumers if we know beforehand which credit report the bank will pull. 

---

This will never happen.

[ReVeLaTeD]

I don't think it's valuable to know which bureau.

I think what would be of more value, is that all creditors be compelled to allow a customer to request an alternate bureau be considered IF the bureau pulled contains recently disputed and/or inaccurate information that does not exist on the others.  For example, I'm dealing with a situation right now where a bunch of collections that are invalid appeared on my Experian after my bankruptcy fell off, even though they claim to have been incurred prior to the bankruptcy (They could have filed a claim).  These collections do not appear on Transunion or Equifax.  Problem is American Express and other banks who are hell bent on pulling Experian do not give customers a fair chance when they deny you due to accounts that are being disputed.

As Chase is apt to do, I think others should be forced to do the same - if I call for reconsideration and request you pull a different bureau - even a specific bureau - they should be forced to accomodate that request IF the tradelines that got you declined are clearly in dispute on the first report and are not showing on the other one pulled.

[Anonymous]

---

@ReVeLaTeD wrote:

I don't think it's valuable to know which bureau.

I think what would be of more value, is that all creditors be compelled to allow a customer to request an alternate bureau be considered IF the bureau pulled contains recently disputed and/or inaccurate information that does not exist on the others.  For example, I'm dealing with a situation right now where a bunch of collections that are invalid appeared on my Experian after my bankruptcy fell off, even though they claim to have been incurred prior to the bankruptcy (They could have filed a claim).  These collections do not appear on Transunion or Equifax.  Problem is American Express and other banks who are hell bent on pulling Experian do not give customers a fair chance when they deny you due to accounts that are being disputed.

As Chase is apt to do, I think others should be forced to do the same - if I call for reconsideration and request you pull a different bureau - even a specific bureau - they should be forced to accomodate that request IF the tradelines that got you declined are clearly in dispute on the first report and are not showing on the other one pulled.

---

This will never happen either.

People dispute accurate data all the time.  Just because something is in dispute doesn't mean a potential creditor has to give or even should give you the benefit of the doubt. 

[carlosg]

In reality only one CRA should exit and it should be a government agency not private. They should get rid of this fico score scam. Really the only info the lender need is your credit history and debt to income ratio, not a formula that they created to have an excuse for high interest rates and fees. What makes me sick is that their main target is low income people

[ReVeLaTeD]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@ReVeLaTeD wrote:

I don't think it's valuable to know which bureau.

I think what would be of more value, is that all creditors be compelled to allow a customer to request an alternate bureau be considered IF the bureau pulled contains recently disputed and/or inaccurate information that does not exist on the others.  For example, I'm dealing with a situation right now where a bunch of collections that are invalid appeared on my Experian after my bankruptcy fell off, even though they claim to have been incurred prior to the bankruptcy (They could have filed a claim).  These collections do not appear on Transunion or Equifax.  Problem is American Express and other banks who are hell bent on pulling Experian do not give customers a fair chance when they deny you due to accounts that are being disputed.

As Chase is apt to do, I think others should be forced to do the same - if I call for reconsideration and request you pull a different bureau - even a specific bureau - they should be forced to accomodate that request IF the tradelines that got you declined are clearly in dispute on the first report and are not showing on the other one pulled.

---

This will never happen either.

People dispute accurate data all the time.  Just because something is in dispute doesn't mean a potential creditor has to give or even should give you the benefit of the doubt. 

---

Then you've negated the proposed value of credit reports.

Credit reports are supposed to be a valid history of how you've performed on various accounts.  If I have an account I want verification on, that's a dispute and IT IS MY RIGHT to do so.  However it's unfair to consider something negative against you while it's in dispute like they do today.  Would you like it if you got accused of raping someone - ACCUSED - and you're pending your day in court to prove your innocents, yet you get labled as a sex offender before the judge strikes the gavel to begin the trial and you dont get the sex offender moniker removed unti you're proven innocent?  Is that the system you'd prefer?

Because that's exactly what we have now with the bureaus.  A system where you're presumed guilty and looked down upon regardless of whether or not the negatives have been properly verified.  A system where anyone can add any derogatory information they want and you can do nothing about it.

Loigically, if it shows on one bureau but not the others, it's reasonable to believe said accounts may not be valid at all.  I honestly feel those should not be considered OR you should have the right to request recon on a different bureau for EVERY creditor.  Force Amex to run Transunion if I request an alternate bureau and Equifax is frozen.