Law Mandating Which CRA the Bank Will Pull

[Anonymous]

---

@ReVeLaTeD wrote:

---

@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.

---

It is not logical to conclude that an account that does not report to all three bureaus may not be valid.  The government for many reasons -- most of them constitutional -- cannot force a creditor to establish a business relationship with a bureau they do not wish to do business with.  This is why we have creditors that do not report to certain bureaus -- such as Nationwide Bank not reporting to EX and Macy's AmEx not reporting to TU.  Most people on this board can probably come up with half a dozen logical reasons why some valid accounts report to one bureau and not another. 

Of course you have the right to dispute what you believe are inaccurate accounts on your credit report and I do not see where anybody said you didn't.  However, what is to stop you, under your theory, from disputing something only to scam a creditor into granting you credit?  What protects the creditor when they grant you credit and then ultimately you lose your dispute? 

Your analogy with the criminal justice system is also flawed.  While one is innocent until proven guilty, the defendant in your example will still stay in jail until trial.  Although in the government's eyes the defendant is innocent, the government cannot regulate what the neighbors think or what is reported on TV.  Also, the innocent until proven guilty provides rights to certain fundamental -- and usually public -- services until convicted.  You have no right to credit.  A creditor can legally deny you credit for any or no reason they choose as long as it does not violate the ECOA.

While I am sure everybody would like to force creditors to pull the credit bureau of our own choice or to not consider certain items when deciding whether or not to grant credit, the fact is that it will not happen for the forseeable future, if ever.

[ReVeLaTeD]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Of course you have the right to dispute what you believe are inaccurate accounts on your credit report and I do not see where anybody said you didn't.  However, what is to stop you, under your theory, from disputing something only to scam a creditor into granting you credit?  What protects the creditor when they grant you credit and then ultimately you lose your dispute? 

---

The same thing that banks do when they fund a car loan that you don't pay for or if you do a deferred down payment and the check bounces, or any other "conditional" lending situation: they take it back.

If a credit card bank issues you a card under the condition of a clean credit report - which they do today, by the way - they have every right to revoke that card and demand payment of funds due if you later don't meet the condition.  Don't pay?  Go to collections.  Still don't pay?  Get garnished.  Your credit is screwed.  The bank has ALL the power.  That means they could, in theory, give you a credit card assuming you have no negatives or the ones you have are in dispute and not from that credit card company on an old account, under the condition that the disputes are successful or that the accounts would not have declined you even without the dispute.

Now, in theory, one could "pyramid" this sort of scheme, and dance from bank to bank.  There's a very easy way to prevent that....denials due to excessive NON-MORTGAGE/NON-AUTO inquiries, which is perfectly allowable and understandable no matter which bureau is pulled.

What I'm saying is, no matter how you slice it, a bunch of these inquiries can and should be considered a red flag.  It shows the person is applying for a bunch of credit cards for whatever reason; either they are getting denied multiple times or they're trying to "pyramid" to get around the dispute issue.  If they pin down the # of inquiries, that stops the chain of destruction in its tracks.

While you're at it, this sort of change does require manual review of credit card applications.  Certain ones will return perfectly clean or whatever and can pass straight through to instant decision, but if there's ones where there are negatives, you simply review the report for those issues.  That creates jobs.  It's actually what the FFELP program requires for federal student loans; they run the credit, they only manually review if there's at least one negative.  In the credit card companies' case they can hire more reconners and train them to evaluate the report and issue conditional approvals.  Like Capital One does, they soft the report for a month or two to see what's going to happen.  If the accounts would have declined the application normally and the dispute fails, the card is revoked.  If the accounts are old or not severe enough to have made an impact, they leave it open.  If the dispute is successful they leave it open.  They can even issue lower credit limits in these conditional situations to minimize risk.

In summary, it CAN be done safely.  They just don't want to.  In which case the only acceptable alternative is, as previously stated, ONE repository that is not a private organization.  I nominate TransUnion, BTW...and suggest we rename it to [Edited to remove a political statement]

[Anonymous]

---

@ReVeLaTeD wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Of course you have the right to dispute what you believe are inaccurate accounts on your credit report and I do not see where anybody said you didn't.  However, what is to stop you, under your theory, from disputing something only to scam a creditor into granting you credit?  What protects the creditor when they grant you credit and then ultimately you lose your dispute? 

---

The same thing that banks do when they fund a car loan that you don't pay for or if you do a deferred down payment and the check bounces, or any other "conditional" lending situation: they take it back.

If a credit card bank issues you a card under the condition of a clean credit report - which they do today, by the way - they have every right to revoke that card and demand payment of funds due if you later don't meet the condition.  Don't pay?  Go to collections.  Still don't pay?  Get garnished.  Your credit is screwed.  The bank has ALL the power.  That means they could, in theory, give you a credit card assuming you have no negatives or the ones you have are in dispute and not from that credit card company on an old account, under the condition that the disputes are successful or that the accounts would not have declined you even without the dispute.

Now, in theory, one could "pyramid" this sort of scheme, and dance from bank to bank.  There's a very easy way to prevent that....denials due to excessive NON-MORTGAGE/NON-AUTO inquiries, which is perfectly allowable and understandable no matter which bureau is pulled.

What I'm saying is, no matter how you slice it, a bunch of these inquiries can and should be considered a red flag.  It shows the person is applying for a bunch of credit cards for whatever reason; either they are getting denied multiple times or they're trying to "pyramid" to get around the dispute issue.  If they pin down the # of inquiries, that stops the chain of destruction in its tracks.

While you're at it, this sort of change does require manual review of credit card applications.  Certain ones will return perfectly clean or whatever and can pass straight through to instant decision, but if there's ones where there are negatives, you simply review the report for those issues.  That creates jobs.  It's actually what the FFELP program requires for federal student loans; they run the credit, they only manually review if there's at least one negative.  In the credit card companies' case they can hire more reconners and train them to evaluate the report and issue conditional approvals.  Like Capital One does, they soft the report for a month or two to see what's going to happen.  If the accounts would have declined the application normally and the dispute fails, the card is revoked.  If the accounts are old or not severe enough to have made an impact, they leave it open.  If the dispute is successful they leave it open.  They can even issue lower credit limits in these conditional situations to minimize risk.

In summary, it CAN be done safely.  They just don't want to.  In which case the only acceptable alternative is, as previously stated, ONE repository that is not a private organization.  I nominate TransUnion, BTW...and suggest we rename it to [Edited to remove a political statement]

---

It would be nice, but it's never going to happen.

You can't compare an auto loan with an unsecured credit card.  A car can be repossessed and that lowers the bank's loss.  It would be a nice trick to see how a credit card company can reposses a month's worth of meals and turn that into money. 

Banks already decline applicants for excessive INQs.  The problem with dealing with those who inevitably will abuse the system by disputing all their derogatories is that no bank wants to be the first to lose money.

Also financially the concept is not at all viable.  It costs the card issuer money to issue the card and set up the account then only to take a loss when the card is cancelled a month or two down the road.  Adding to the head count is also a non-starter.  If banks are forced to hire more people then credit card rewards programs will get the axe and a good interest rate will become something like 25%. 

I think I'll pass on a government CRA.  Those clowns can't even get a No Fly List done right and there are only a few thousand names involved.  Wasn't it Senator Kennedy who was always denied boarding because someone with a similar name was on the list?  And then there's the privacy issues.  Forget it.  Ain't never happening.

[Anonymous]

---

@ReVeLaTeD wrote:

---

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?

---

Not to be a jerk but that happens today right now. EVERY DAY.

In fact a friend of mine had rape allegations leveled against him.

He had a gathering last July, at his (I was there) house, and some one brought people he did not know. They were asked to leave when it became apparant there behavior waws not a good thing as they were kinda drunk loud and stupid. In the process of them being there they had cleaned out the medicine cabinet in the bathroom which contained among stool softner, and a prescription vial with 2 vicodin.

Hours later, they were stopped by the police that night, found to be drunk and carrying the "drugs" and spun a story of sex for drugs forced sex and drug dealing and it was not their fault. The police never came to the house to investigate that night.

He was fired from his his second job the minute police came to his work place to question him.

He spent 1,000 on an attorney at the initial questioning when the police said he was accused of rape and he was like "UMM what?"

He was indicted by a grand jury, which means the charges immediately became public record and searchable on the web.

He was arraigned, where in the process they hand cuffed him to a table in the Justice center and forecibly removed blood from him for an HIV test all the time he was saying I never had sex with anyone and just had an HIV test.

He had bail Set for $25,000 (which the bondsman said was curiously  low for rape/drug dealing) he paid the $2,500 himself to get bailed out.

He was declared indigent and had assigned a Court  appointed attorney who luckily on the docket that day was one of the best in the business. The day after his arraignment he was fired from his remaining job for being a danger to other employees and a "potential" legal liability.

When he met his attorney and told his attorney nothing happened, explained about asking them to leave.

They spent 2 months waiting on discovery from the prosecution. It never came. Finally the judge had to admonish the prosecution. With a court date every day.

Discovery had no evidence, no DNA, they never searched the house, they had no evidence of any sexual encounter. It was actually one persons statement about what he saw my friend do to the other. the other person said nothing happened, but the prosecution felt he could have been embarrassed so therefore was not telling the truth.

The accusers had quit co operating with the police and prosecuter and had to have subpoena issued. The prosecution then sent the police to pick them up to force their presence.

My friend had about 10 days going to court where nothing happened as the accusers did not show or discovery had not been transferred yet. had he not shown up they would have revoked bail and put him in jail.

Finally in April, after having his attorney tell him repeatedly the case would be dropped/dismissed ("its a bad case," "the Prosecuter doesn't he has to wait for his bosses to say it can be dropped," "the prosecuter does not want it cause i will get your accusers on the stand and make them perjure themselves and he knows it") that the prosecuter did not want it, at the end of April all charges were dismissed

Again, it was dismissed. All charges

My friend is still unemployed. Trying to get his life back together. you can still see his indictment online as that is a matter of fact, and the cost to seal it is too much for my friend.

I stood by, I was at the party and knew there was never a chance for that to have happened. I have had people I talk to tell me, "Yeah he got out of it"

I reply there was nothing to get out of all charges were dismissed.

Two different, potential  employers bounced him as "Failing" the criminal back ground check. I have seen his criminal background he showed me as he kept copies of his evidence there is nothing but a DUI from 1993.

So I guess Justice happened. but I don't know to a lot of people he is a sex offender.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@ReVeLaTeD wrote:

---

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?

---

Not to be a jerk but that happens today right now. EVERY DAY.

In fact a friend of mine had rape allegations leveled against him.

He had a gathering last July, at his (I was there) house, and some one brought people he did not know. They were asked to leave when it became apparant there behavior waws not a good thing as they were kinda drunk loud and stupid. In the process of them being there they had cleaned out the medicine cabinet in the bathroom which contained among stool softner, and a prescription vial with 2 vicodin.

Hours later, they were stopped by the police that night, found to be drunk and carrying the "drugs" and spun a story of sex for drugs forced sex and drug dealing and it was not their fault. The police never came to the house to investigate that night.

He was fired from his his second job the minute police came to his work place to question him.

He spent 1,000 on an attorney at the initial questioning when the police said he was accused of rape and he was like "UMM what?"

He was indicted by a grand jury, which means the charges immediately became public record and searchable on the web.

He was arraigned, where in the process they hand cuffed him to a table in the Justice center and forecibly removed blood from him for an HIV test all the time he was saying I never had sex with anyone and just had an HIV test.

He had bail Set for $25,000 (which the bondsman said was curiously  low for rape/drug dealing) he paid the $2,500 himself to get bailed out.

He was declared indigent and had assigned a Court  appointed attorney who luckily on the docket that day was one of the best in the business. The day after his arraignment he was fired from his remaining job for being a danger to other employees and a "potential" legal liability.

When he met his attorney and told his attorney nothing happened, explained about asking them to leave.

They spent 2 months waiting on discovery from the prosecution. It never came. Finally the judge had to admonish the prosecution. With a court date every day.

Discovery had no evidence, no DNA, they never searched the house, they had no evidence of any sexual encounter. It was actually one persons statement about what he saw my friend do to the other. the other person said nothing happened, but the prosecution felt he could have been embarrassed so therefore was not telling the truth.

The accusers had quit co operating with the police and prosecuter and had to have subpoena issued. The prosecution then sent the police to pick them up to force their presence.

My friend had about 10 days going to court where nothing happened as the accusers did not show or discovery had not been transferred yet. had he not shown up they would have revoked bail and put him in jail.

Finally in April, after having his attorney tell him repeatedly the case would be dropped/dismissed ("its a bad case," "the Prosecuter doesn't he has to wait for his bosses to say it can be dropped," "the prosecuter does not want it cause i will get your accusers on the stand and make them perjure themselves and he knows it") that the prosecuter did not want it, at the end of April all charges were dismissed

Again, it was dismissed. All charges

My friend is still unemployed. Trying to get his life back together. you can still see his indictment online as that is a matter of fact, and the cost to seal it is too much for my friend.

I stood by, I was at the party and knew there was never a chance for that to have happened. I have had people I talk to tell me, "Yeah he got out of it"

I reply there was nothing to get out of all charges were dismissed.

Two different, potential  employers bounced him as "Failing" the criminal back ground check. I have seen his criminal background he showed me as he kept copies of his evidence there is nothing but a DUI from 1993.

So I guess Justice happened. but I don't know to a lot of people he is a sex offender.

---

+1

Yup, sad, but true.  Innocent until proven guilty is such a lovely concept, no?

At least with credit reports eventually they can be fixed.

[LS2982]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@ReVeLaTeD wrote:

---

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?

---

Not to be a jerk but that happens today right now. EVERY DAY.

In fact a friend of mine had rape allegations leveled against him.

He had a gathering last July, at his (I was there) house, and some one brought people he did not know. They were asked to leave when it became apparant there behavior waws not a good thing as they were kinda drunk loud and stupid. In the process of them being there they had cleaned out the medicine cabinet in the bathroom which contained among stool softner, and a prescription vial with 2 vicodin.

Hours later, they were stopped by the police that night, found to be drunk and carrying the "drugs" and spun a story of sex for drugs forced sex and drug dealing and it was not their fault. The police never came to the house to investigate that night.

He was fired from his his second job the minute police came to his work place to question him.

He spent 1,000 on an attorney at the initial questioning when the police said he was accused of rape and he was like "UMM what?"

He was indicted by a grand jury, which means the charges immediately became public record and searchable on the web.

He was arraigned, where in the process they hand cuffed him to a table in the Justice center and forecibly removed blood from him for an HIV test all the time he was saying I never had sex with anyone and just had an HIV test.

He had bail Set for $25,000 (which the bondsman said was curiously  low for rape/drug dealing) he paid the $2,500 himself to get bailed out.

He was declared indigent and had assigned a Court  appointed attorney who luckily on the docket that day was one of the best in the business. The day after his arraignment he was fired from his remaining job for being a danger to other employees and a "potential" legal liability.

When he met his attorney and told his attorney nothing happened, explained about asking them to leave.

They spent 2 months waiting on discovery from the prosecution. It never came. Finally the judge had to admonish the prosecution. With a court date every day.

Discovery had no evidence, no DNA, they never searched the house, they had no evidence of any sexual encounter. It was actually one persons statement about what he saw my friend do to the other. the other person said nothing happened, but the prosecution felt he could have been embarrassed so therefore was not telling the truth.

The accusers had quit co operating with the police and prosecuter and had to have subpoena issued. The prosecution then sent the police to pick them up to force their presence.

My friend had about 10 days going to court where nothing happened as the accusers did not show or discovery had not been transferred yet. had he not shown up they would have revoked bail and put him in jail.

Finally in April, after having his attorney tell him repeatedly the case would be dropped/dismissed ("its a bad case," "the Prosecuter doesn't he has to wait for his bosses to say it can be dropped," "the prosecuter does not want it cause i will get your accusers on the stand and make them perjure themselves and he knows it") that the prosecuter did not want it, at the end of April all charges were dismissed

Again, it was dismissed. All charges

My friend is still unemployed. Trying to get his life back together. you can still see his indictment online as that is a matter of fact, and the cost to seal it is too much for my friend.

I stood by, I was at the party and knew there was never a chance for that to have happened. I have had people I talk to tell me, "Yeah he got out of it"

I reply there was nothing to get out of all charges were dismissed.

Two different, potential  employers bounced him as "Failing" the criminal back ground check. I have seen his criminal background he showed me as he kept copies of his evidence there is nothing but a DUI from 1993.

So I guess Justice happened. but I don't know to a lot of people he is a sex offender.

---

I think if I was your friend I would be going to jail by taking justice into my own hands and beatingthe accusers senseless and not thinking twice.

[ReVeLaTeD]

A heart warming story.  And as an old man from Pasadena once told me, "There are more than two sides to every story: The teller's version, the subject's version, and the truth.  Police detectives have jobs because nobody ever knows the truth of a story, so they are paid to piece together the closest possible." 

In other words, you've got people pulled over by cops; you don't know what they REALLY said because you weren't there.  You've got people bringing uninvited people to a party, you don't know the discussions prior to this at their house.  You've got someone yelling rape, but you don't know if they really did or if the cops just assumed based on what they saw...etc.  Too many unknowns.  No one person can ever know the 100% truth of a situation.

In any event, the story is not analogous to what I said.  I asked if a person would like it if they were registered as a sex offender BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN.  In your story, that registration never happened.  He got his day in court, he wasn't convicted.  He was charged, but the charges were dismissed.  He did get off...he got off because there was no proof he did it.

In my credit report statement, I'm making an analogy with my hypothetical scenario (registered as a sex offender BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN) against the way the credit reporting system works (we add a derogatory to the report = register as an offender BEFORE THE VALIDATION OCCURS, then punish the person until it's been proven otherwise).  Guess what?  We don't do that.  We don't force someone to register as a sex offender unless and until convicted.  All this stuff about "but people think he is!!" Maybe, but it's irrelevant.  They are NOT registered until/unless convicted.

What I'm saying is, the current system of just throwing someone's credit to the trash over something that may or may not be valid and not yet verified is improper, and the laws such as FCRA and FACTA are not enough to deal with the problem.  Especially not under a system where the score penalty for something so benign as a credit card company not reporting the credit limit on a $9,000 card yet reporting the balance of $5 which then rings up as 100% utilization is so punitive as to literally be the difference between paying $500/month for a car and $700/month for a car.

This would all be moot if it were not for the use of Social Security numbers to uniquely identify a person.  There are too many opportunities for screwed up credit files where someone else's bad credit is merged in with yours.  Having worked for a bureau, I know all too well how frequently this happens, and not having a system to protect customers from detrimental actions due to as-yet-unverified tradelines is just appalling.

[Anonymous]

"In other words, you've got people pulled over by cops; you don't know what they REALLY said because you weren't there.  You've got people bringing uninvited people to a party, you don't know the discussions prior to this at their house.  You've got someone yelling rape, but you don't know if they really did or if the cops just assumed based on what they saw...etc.  Too many unknowns.  No one person can ever know the 100% truth of a situation.

A heart warming story.  And as an old man from Pasadena once told me, "There are more than two sides to every story: The teller's version, the subject's version, and the truth.  Police detectives have jobs because nobody ever knows the truth of a story, so they are paid to piece together the closest possible." 

Actually:

I was at the party. I have read the accusers statements. I took him to the Attorney appointments (although did not sit in with him- attorney client confidentiality will protect the conversation between the accused and the attorney, but unless you are a married spouse, if you sit in on the meeting you can be subpoenaed). I sat with him half the days he went to court. I was there the day it was dismissed.

Cuyahoga County has an annoying habit of prosecuting  everyone regardless of the merits of the evidence, and lack of substantiating evidence. The Cleveland Plain Dealer did a five part article series on it. Which made things even worse if you really want the truth, knowing it was happening to someone else.

Presumed Guilty: Prosecutions without evidence

[MarineVietVet]

This thread has quickly gotten off topic.

The last few posts have nothing to do with the original question: Do you all think there should be a law that mandate creditors to disclose which CRA they will pull during the application process? 

Time to get back to that.

From a BK years ago to:
EX - 3/11 pulled by lender- 835, EQ - 2/11-816, TU - 2/11-782

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem".

[DI]

If a law isn't passed, we consumers just have to continue utilizing the ability to freeze our credit reports of choice.