Modifications to the FCRA that we'd like to see........

[Anonymous]

What I'd like to see from Congress is to further modify the FCRA as follows:  

1) Require the CRA's, upon notification by the consumer, to verify with the creditor in question the existence of the account.  It would work similar to the dispute process, whereby the CRA would get the dispute, contact the creditor to confirm and then add the TL.

2) Permit the consumer to, upon request, request the CRA to provide WRITTEN documentation showing how and when they contacted the creditor to verify an account (either to add or to delete a TL), including with whom they contacted.   This service would only be available upon consumer request.

3) Allow re-insertions only with the expressed written request of the consumer.

Until we have these changes, there is unlikely we will be able to confirm that credit reports are 100% accurate.

Any comments?

[Anonymous]

---

Boscoe wrote:

What I'd like to see from Congress is to further modify the FCRA as follows:  

1) Require the CRA's, upon notification by the consumer, to verify with the creditor in question the existence of the account.  It would work similar to the dispute process, whereby the CRA would get the dispute, contact the creditor to confirm and then add the TL.

Once the TL is added, how will it be updated every month? If the creditor doesn't report, they aren't going to update it every month. The CRA would have to contact each month. A creditor does not have to report.

2) Permit the consumer to, upon request, request the CRA to provide WRITTEN documentation showing how and when they contacted the creditor to verify an account (either to add or to delete a TL), including with whom they contacted.   This service would only be available upon consumer request.

This is call Method of Verification. The consumer is permitted to request it once the consumer has disputed and the TL has been "verified".

3) Allow re-insertions only with the expressed written request of the consumer.

What consumer is going to consent to accurate, negative information being re-inserted?

Until we have these changes, there is unlikely we will be able to confirm that credit reports are 100% accurate.

Even with those changes, credit reports aren't likely going to be 100% accurate.

Any comments?

---

[Anonymous]

Responses to your responses:

1) Require the CRA's, upon notification by the consumer, to verify with the creditor in question the existence of the account.  It would work similar to the dispute process, whereby the CRA would get the dispute, contact the creditor to confirm and then add the TL.

Once the TL is added, how will it be updated every month? If the creditor doesn't report, they aren't going to update it every month. The CRA would have to contact each month. A creditor does not have to report.

How do you think they will be updated?   By the creditor of course!  If they don't update, they don't update.  If it is a closed account, it wouldn't be updated anyway.....c'mon, you know all this!

2) Permit the consumer to, upon request, request the CRA to provide WRITTEN documentation showing how and when they contacted the creditor to verify an account (either to add or to delete a TL), including with whom they contacted.   This service would only be available upon consumer request.

This is call Method of Verification. The consumer is permitted to request it once the consumer has disputed and the TL has been "verified".

"Method of Verification" is a urban legend, a myth.  Doesn't exist.   All you and I ever get is vague statements from the CRA's about "we request electronically......from the creditor.......blah blah blah."   We need something that is specific to our case and is documented in writing.  I challenge anyone to show a MOV that actually is helpful and infomative.

3) Allow re-insertions only with the expressed written request of the consumer.

What consumer is going to consent to accurate, negative information being re-inserted?

Again,  you know better than this!    Of course, no one will consent to negative info.   What about positive info, like a closed account?   Let's keep it realistic here, please.

Until we have these changes, there is unlikely we will be able to confirm that credit reports are 100% accurate.

Even with those changes, credit reports aren't likely going to be 100% accurate.

We will be alot closer than we are today.   Feel free to offer up other suggestions of other ways we can accomplish this.  

Any comments?

[Anonymous]

---

Boscoe wrote:

Responses to your responses:

1) Require the CRA's, upon notification by the consumer, to verify with the creditor in question the existence of the account.  It would work similar to the dispute process, whereby the CRA would get the dispute, contact the creditor to confirm and then add the TL.

Once the TL is added, how will it be updated every month? If the creditor doesn't report, they aren't going to update it every month. The CRA would have to contact each month. A creditor does not have to report.

How do you think they will be updated?   By the creditor of course!  If they don't update, they don't update.  If it is a closed account, it wouldn't be updated anyway.....c'mon, you know all this!

If the creditor didn't report the TL to begin with and it took a dispute to have it added, do you think they are gonna update it? If they don't update, then why bother having it on there?

2) Permit the consumer to, upon request, request the CRA to provide WRITTEN documentation showing how and when they contacted the creditor to verify an account (either to add or to delete a TL), including with whom they contacted.   This service would only be available upon consumer request.

This is call Method of Verification. The consumer is permitted to request it once the consumer has disputed and the TL has been "verified".

"Method of Verification" is a urban legend, a myth.  Doesn't exist.   All you and I ever get is vague statements from the CRA's about "we request electronically......from the creditor.......blah blah blah."   We need something that is specific to our case and is documented in writing.  I challenge anyone to show a MOV that actually is helpful and infomative.

I've never used MOV. However, when the CRA are challenged and made to show MOV in court enough, they will begin following the law like they should.

3) Allow re-insertions only with the expressed written request of the consumer.

What consumer is going to consent to accurate, negative information being re-inserted?

Again,  you know better than this!    Of course, no one will consent to negative info.   What about positive info, like a closed account?   Let's keep it realistic here, please.

If it is positive info on a closed account, why was it deleted and why is it important to have the consent of the consumer to reinsert it?

Until we have these changes, there is unlikely we will be able to confirm that credit reports are 100% accurate.

Even with those changes, credit reports aren't likely going to be 100% accurate.

We will be alot closer than we are today.   Feel free to offer up other suggestions of other ways we can accomplish this.  

Any comments?

---

[Anonymous]

Boscoe, regarding #2:

I believe sidewinder's point about MOV is that what you are wishing for in #2 already is a part of the FCRA.  Whether MOV are effective or not and whether the CRAs regularly ignore this piece of the law when they respond to MOV requests, well, those are different issues entirely.  The point is that the requirement you are wishing for is already there.  Does it need to be enforced better?  IMO, yes.  But adding to the existing legislation is not going to change anything in that regard.

Message Edited by cheddar on 06-20-2008 08:20 AM

[rubaty]

---

Boscoe wrote:

Until we have these changes, there is unlikely we will be able to confirm that credit reports are 100% accurate.

Any comments?

---

All 3 of my credit reports have been 100% accurate since 1994.

[Anonymous]

Sidewinder - you are being argumentative and are not reading my responses.

#1 -  I'll put in CAPS so you will see it this time:  A CLOSED ACCOUNT CAN HELP YOU.   NO ONE UPDATES CLOSED ACCOUNTS ONCE REPORTED,  SO BY REPORTING IT ONCE THAT IS ALL YOU NEED.

#2 - MOV, like anything else, should not require litigation.   Saying "If you sue, then they will listen" doesn't suffice.  We deserve better.

#3 - It is irrelevant why it was deleted.  It was.   Perhaps the consumer was uninformed about FICO scores when they requested the deletion.  Now they are smart about such things and want it back on.   The second part of your comment "why it is so important to get their consent to reinsert" is a contradiction of your first statement "who would consent for negative info to be readded".

[Anonymous]

---

Boscoe wrote:

#2 - MOV, like anything else, should not require litigation.   Saying "If you sue, then they will listen" doesn't suffice.  We deserve better.

---

Boscoe, once again, you are arguing for better enforcement of existing laws, rather than "modifications to the FCRA that we'd like to see."

You can add requirements to the FCRA all day long, but that does not, in and of itself, make them comply.  The only things that can do that are the FTC, the state AGs, and lawsuits.

Message Edited by cheddar on 06-20-2008 10:44 AM

[Anonymous]

---

Boscoe wrote:

Sidewinder - you are being argumentative and are not reading my responses.

#1 -  I'll put in CAPS so you will see it this time:  A CLOSED ACCOUNT CAN HELP YOU.   NO ONE UPDATES CLOSED ACCOUNTS ONCE REPORTED,  SO BY REPORTING IT ONCE THAT IS ALL YOU NEED.

Reporting it once for a closed account is all you need true. So, you are saying that it should be a law that if you have a closed account with a creditor that doesn't report, you should be able to force them to report it?

The only way I see this happening is to mandate credit reporting from all creditors.

#2 - MOV, like anything else, should not require litigation.   Saying "If you sue, then they will listen" doesn't suffice.  We deserve better.

True, but adding it to the FCRA isn't going to make things better. It is already there, like many FDCPA/FCRA laws. They are there but are not followed. Enforcement is what is needed.

#3 - It is irrelevant why it was deleted.  It was.   Perhaps the consumer was uninformed about FICO scores when they requested the deletion.  Now they are smart about such things and want it back on.   The second part of your comment "why it is so important to get their consent to reinsert" is a contradiction of your first statement "who would consent for negative info to be readded".

What I asked is if you are talking about reinserting positive information, then why would consent be needed?

If you are talking about negative information, who would consent?

Statements to two different scenarios, no contradictions.

---

I am not being arguementative. I am just expressing thoughts of why I don't see those changes happening.

[Anonymous]

If you don't think they will happen, fine.  Neither do I.   But you sounded like you disagreed strongly with the recommendations............