Experian Advising to Break Its Own Rules?

[Anonymous]

---

@pizzadude wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Interesting... why do you say that is technically against the CRA agreements?  Do creditors sign an agreement with CRA's that obligates them to never change what is reported, or never delete an account?

---

Another part of the agreement between Creditors and the CRAs explictly forbids deleting previously reported information in exchange for payment.   This is one of the main reasons that most CAs/Creditors don't agree to PFDs.

---

I hear/see both of you saying that.. and I disagree because the law protects accuracy of information, not a requirement to not change information or to exclude from reporting any part that they so desire.  I don't believe at all that any creditor is legally or contractually bound to these statement you and the OP are claiming as fact, and I was just curious if there was any reference available or a link I could check out so I could educate myself if I am wrong.  but saying something is part of an agreement based on hearsay, rumor, or incomplete information is not a factual reference, so I'm not sure where we go from here. :-)

We know that creditor are legally able to do PFDs and GW deletion or removal of previous negative information.  That is a fact.  It has happened, we have had it done, or know people directly who have had it done (I have had GW information changes, personally), so it is certainly not a matter of legality.  If you claim it is a contractual matter between all creditors and all CRA's, why would some creditors openly defy their agreement?  And why would any creditor sign such a ludicrous stipulation that they can never change any information they previously reported?  Please provide some kind of evidence and I will happily educate myself with your facts, and I will thank you profusely as I humbly apologize for being wrong :-)

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Do creditors sign an agreement with CRA's that obligates them to never change what is reported, or never delete an account?

---

According to what Toyota has written back to me regarding my goodwill letters to them -- what you've stated above is EXACTLY how they view the contract that they signed with the CRAs.  They PAY to report the information VOWING that they will never change what they report and, never deleting it either.  And, according to what RobertEG has told us time and time again --- the creditors DO continue to report into infinity, it is the CRAs that, by law, quit including negatively reported tradelines after 7.5 years. 

[Anonymous]

FCRA statute: “623(a)(7)(E)” explicitly confirms that "no provision of this paragraph shall be construed as requiring a financial institution to furnish negative information about a consumer to a consumer reporting agency."  

Though awkwardly worded, this is about as close as it comes to giving us any "teeth" in our goodwill letters. 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@pizzadude wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Interesting... why do you say that is technically against the CRA agreements?  Do creditors sign an agreement with CRA's that obligates them to never change what is reported, or never delete an account?

---

Another part of the agreement between Creditors and the CRAs explictly forbids deleting previously reported information in exchange for payment.   This is one of the main reasons that most CAs/Creditors don't agree to PFDs.

---

I hear/see both of you saying that.. and I disagree because the law protects accuracy of information, not a requirement to not change information or to exclude from reporting any part that they so desire.  I don't believe at all that any creditor is legally or contractually bound to these statement you and the OP are claiming as fact, and I was just curious if there was any reference available or a link I could check out so I could educate myself if I am wrong.  but saying something is part of an agreement based on hearsay, rumor, or incomplete information is not a factual reference, so I'm not sure where we go from here. :-)

We know that creditor are legally able to do PFDs and GW deletion or removal of previous negative information.  That is a fact.  It has happened, we have had it done, or know people directly who have had it done (I have had GW information changes, personally), so it is certainly not a matter of legality.  If you claim it is a contractual matter between all creditors and all CRA's, why would some creditors openly defy their agreement?  And why would any creditor sign such a ludicrous stipulation that they can never change any information they previously reported?  Please provide some kind of evidence and I will happily educate myself with your facts, and I will thank you profusely as I humbly apologize for being wrong :-)

---

It's not hearsay or a rumor. It is well known, confirmed information. Do a search for PFD/GW denials and you will see many people. It's also in the published guidelines that the big three agree on.

This isn't about the law. I never said that it was illegal to delete information, and in fact it does happen all the time. But it is in violation of the contracts that creditors enter into with CRAs. That's why it was surprising to see Experian reccommending to make arrangements for deletion.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

FCRA statute: “623(a)(7)(E)” explicitly confirms that "no provision of this paragraph shall be construed as requiring a financial institution to furnish negative information about a consumer to a consumer reporting agency."  

Though awkwardly worded, this is about as close as it comes to giving us any "teeth" in our goodwill letters. 

---

Again, as I have mentioned a couple of times now, they are not required to report any information whether it be positive or negative. However, once reported, they are not allowed to delete unless it's for factual errors. This is not an FCRA issue and there is nothing illegal about deleting information. It is merely a violation of a contract entered into by two private parties.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

FCRA statute: “623(a)(7)(E)” explicitly confirms that "no provision of this paragraph shall be construed as requiring a financial institution to furnish negative information about a consumer to a consumer reporting agency."  

Though awkwardly worded, this is about as close as it comes to giving us any "teeth" in our goodwill letters. 

---

Again, as I have mentioned a couple of times now, they are not required to report any information whether it be positive or negative. However, once reported, they are not allowed to delete unless it's for factual errors. This is not an FCRA issue and there is nothing illegal about deleting information. It is merely a violation of a contract entered into by two private parties.

---

Ok, so where is this contract you are quoting?
I'm still just seeing hearsay and rumor from message boards... discernment quoted a law that takes the legal question out of the picture (thank you, by the way), but you're still saying it's in the agreement/contract that the creditor signs with the CRA... so just show us where that is so we can all learn :-)

It's also common knowledge that the original pastafarians were pirates because the Flying Spaghetti Monster tells us that... but I don't think creditors are obliged to conform to that belief without proof... just like this contract to never remove information.

[Anonymous]

In other words, I don't disagree with the fact that you believe it's a fact because you have heard it from many people.  What I disagree with is whether it IS a fact.. and facts and message board opinions are not necessarily equal ;-)  

You mentioned "published guidelines"... I'm googling and not finding those... happen to have a link so I can check it out?  I would definitely be insterested if that were the case... I might be able lead the CRAs and a mass-suing of all the creditors that have ever PFD in violation of their written contracts... I could take like a 1% finders fee or something since apparently the CRAs haven't realized that so many customers have violated their legally-binding contracts!

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Ok, so where is this contract you are quoting?

I'm still just seeing hearsay and rumor from message boards... discernment quoted a law that takes the legal question out of the picture (thank you, by the way), but you're still saying it's in the agreement/contract that the creditor signs with the CRA... so just show us where that is so we can all learn :-)

It's also common knowledge that the original pastafarians were pirates because the Flying Spaghetti Monster tells us that... but I don't think creditors are obliged to conform to that belief without proof... just like this contract to never remove information.

---

Well, I stated in message #12 of this thread how my creditor, Toyota, views their contract with the CRAs. The responsive letters they've sent to me regarding my goodwill leters to them ALL say that they would be falsifying their current accurate reporting and violating their reporting contracts with Equifax, Transunion, Experian AND, they even include Innovis, as well.  BUT, I too would like to see "the contract" myself!   It would be interesting to see just how those contracts are worded. 

[android01]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Ok, so where is this contract you are quoting?

I'm still just seeing hearsay and rumor from message boards... discernment quoted a law that takes the legal question out of the picture (thank you, by the way), but you're still saying it's in the agreement/contract that the creditor signs with the CRA... so just show us where that is so we can all learn :-)

It's also common knowledge that the original pastafarians were pirates because the Flying Spaghetti Monster tells us that... but I don't think creditors are obliged to conform to that belief without proof... just like this contract to never remove information.

---

Well, I stated in message #12 of this thread how my creditor, Toyota, views their contract with the CRAs. The responsive letters they've sent to me regarding my goodwill leters to them ALL say that they would be falsifying their current accurate reporting and violating their reporting contracts with Equifax, Transunion, Experian AND, they even include Innovis, as well.  BUT, I too would like to see "the contract" myself!   It would be interesting to see just how those contracts are worded. 

---

This is standard boiler plate stuff that you'll see with many financial institutions - BofA comes to mind - and it's the one liner CSR's can use to justify not doing what you're asking them to do.  With all of the time, manpower, effort, and money that banks would need to cough up to address the undoubtedly tens of thousands of cases they'd have to research annually, it's no surprize that they'd take this tact.  However, as mentioned earlier the FCRA does not explicitly state they have to report anything.  If they do choose to report, it HAS to be accurate.  So, if you have a negative tradeline one day and it is gone the next, it means that the bank didn't alter or change it, they mearly chose not to report it.  They are not violating the FCRA and doing nothing illegal. 

There is an FCRA stickie somewhere around here that goes over the FCRA that everyone should read. 

[Anonymous]

Citibank and Bank of America, two of the largest creditors in the world (and more than likely very good customers of the CRA's, but that is just an inference) both took the liberty of removing negative, though completely accurate, information from what they reported to the CRA's.  All three.  Multiple times.  According to this thread, that is a massive breach of contract and they could be sued mercilessly if my situation was repeated for xxx other customers.  So again, I'd love to see that contract that is 'common knowledge" so I can leave my job, become a lawyer, and lead that lawsuit and become part of the 1% ;-)