PNC Checking Acct Denied due to Early Warning Services

[Anonymous]

The important next step for our OP (which he realizes) is to obtain copies of his reports.  I'd recommend a fresh copy of all five reports: TU, EQ, EX, ChexSystems, and EWS.  The first three are easy to get so no reason not to have them in the same snapshot of time.

While our OP does not have those reports (especially EWS) it is probably premature to involve the CFPB, our OP's attorney, the Attorney General, and the BBB.  Also premature for us to guess as to what the reports might say or what next steps should be.  Pull the reports, go over them carefully, and then circle back with the folks here to develop a plan.

If there is false data, work with EWS on getting it corrected.  As always, first try to enlist institutions as allies rather than as opponents.

EWS is best viewed as just another CRA.  The history behind every CRA coming into existence probably involved groups (banks, lenders, whatever) wishing to track high risk behavior -- EWS is not fundamentally that much different from CS (just as TU, EX, and EQ are best viewed as Seussian characters like Thing 1, Thing 2, and Thing 3).

After you know a lot more about what might have been going on with your EWS report (reviewing it carefully, comparing it to CS, and then enlisting PNC and EWS as allies in sorting out what might triggered the rejection) then you can explore issues regarding freezing.

An interesting question is whether CS permits freezing.

A final thought.  A freeze itself does not solve one's woes regarding approval.  Your initial goal was to get approved by PNC.  If PNC's policy is to review your EWS report and they are blocked from so doing, then your approval chance may be reduced to zero. 

Anyway, interesting situation that you have and I am sure we will all be curious to hear how it develops once you have your reports (especially EWS).

[trusty]

---

@Anonymouswrote:

EWS is purely a risk control data collector for banks however

they're decent at removing incorrect information, and report is FREE.

---

No matter what they call themselves, they're still a Consumer Reporting Agency. If it walks, talks, acts and quacks, than it's still a duck.

Therefore, they are subject to - or at least should be - the same laws governing providing security freezes to consumers, as such.

Furthermore, there is a huge lack of privacy regarding the information contained within their reports. (i.e. including full account number and routing numbers) For this reason alone, consumers should be allowed to freeze these reports.

Under the guise of preventing fraud... these CRA's certainly do their level best to contribute to it. 

In today's tech age, some of this stuff should be common sense. But, since it's not... we have to monitor all of the reports and personal information that's being disseminated about us, without our consent... just floating around out there.

Otherwise, you end up with situations... i.e. data breaches. Here's the rub: huge data breaches wouldn't matter, if these CRA's weren't stupid enough to list the full details of accounts and personal information - right out in the open. Alas, many of them have huge security flaws; because they're obviously more interested in monetizing other people's personal information, than figuring out how to protect other people's personal information.

So, that's why we need laws (which we do have) to protect consumers from companies selling consumer information; companies that apparently can't even figure out - or just don't care - how to keep that information safe.

A civilised society would not allow private companies (i.e. random pirates - with a pirate license) to sell other people's private personal information, without their consent, as well as, compensation. But, I digress.

[Anonymous]

trusty ... a well written overview of the whole consumer reporting industry. Sure could use your thinking in the real world (which seems elusive to say the least when it comes to the "it's too big to fail banking world"). Nice job!

[Anonymous]

I spoke to Early Warning Services about placing a security freeze. They said their excempt because their a "Specialty Reporting Agency". That's rediculous, they're report contained the same thing that EQ, EX, etc. had.

Anyway, CFPB shouldn't offer any company special permission to play with fire. This will only lead to more headaches for consumers in the future.

[Anonymous]

What pnc did was not legal. Refer to JP Morgan case quoted summary below...
ASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said on Wednesday it had ordered JPMorgan Chase & Co to pay $4.6 million for allegedly failing to make sure it reported accurate information for checking account screening reports.

Similar to credit reports, the screenings provided by companies such as Certegy Check Services, ChexSystems and Early Warning Services help institutions decide if a person can open an account. Chase did not have proper procedures to ensure information it gave the companies was true, according to the CFPB. That could have led customers with clean histories to be turned down for bank accounts, or those with negative pasts, such as suspected fraud, to be allowed to open ones...

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I’m not an expert but having multiple checking accounts wouldn’t be a flag for that. Writing bad checks, having a charged off checking account stuff like that is what gets you on their alerts.

---

Actually it can be. 

If one opens multiple checking accounts in a short period of time, that can be considered "risky" to a bank. Why? Because the bank may suspect someone stole your identity and opened multiple accounts under your name. 

[Anonymous]

Bump

Did we ever get to answer the question to whether EWS is lawfully denying security freezes?

[Anonymous]

As this thread is well over a year old and the OP hasn't returned, it's best that if there are questions regarding EWS that they are asked in a new one.  Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

This thread now locked.