FTC Complaint against CRAs not maintaining accurate info

[luckyduck]

Negs are almost off the reports, but there is inaccurate info in almost EVERY account. There comes a time when you get sick of telling the CRAs that a revolving account has a credit limit, and a closed account doesn't have a monthly obligation, and the current balance can't be higher than the high balance. Charged off accounts are closed. Collection accounts are closed. It's common sense, and there's no reason for these inaccuracies to exist. I filed a complaint with the FTC, and I'm sending one last detailed dispute to the CRAs. There's just no reason for this.

Here's a copy of my complaint. Anyone else want to see some of these things come to an end? Just file a complaint, or start a petition, whatever. If they get enough complaints, it could save a lot of headache in disputing information which is impossible to verify as accurate. I'm sick of creditors and CRAs saying that these things are verified, and are accurate. Are you?

https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01

Credit reporting agencies (Agencies) do not use reasonable procedures to maintain maximum possible accuracy in their files.

Agencies report many revolving accounts with no credit limits.

Agencies list high balances of many accounts as $0, with current balances above zero.

Agencies report current monthly payment obligations for many closed accounts with zero balances, where there is no obligation.

Agencies do not report the closure of all charged off and collection accounts.

Agencies keep collection and charged off accounts in their files, whether or not the furnisher has reported date of first delinquency.

Agencies (except Equifax) do not include the reported date of first delinquency in credit files disclosed to and about consumers.

Agencies can reasonably prevent these inaccuracies by using a computer "catch" which prevents certain types of accounts from being reported if the information cannot possibly be accurate. For example, they can prevent a revolving account from reporting if the furnisher does not provide a positive number representing a credit limit. They already have the technology and instilling this would not be unreasonable.

Consumers are caused financial and emotional harm by agencies' failure to maintain procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy.

Please investigate whether the agencies are using reasonable procedures to maintain maximum possible accuracy of the information it reports about individuals, as is required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act section 607(.

Upon a finding that agency procedures are not reasonable, please take action to ensure that agencies comply with the law and instill reasonable procedures which are currently missing.

Thank you.

That was hard to keep under 2000 characters.

[gdouglaslee]

A closed account may not have a monthly obligation now, but at one point it did, which is something many creditors want to see.

I am willing to bet that a year from now, none of the items you addressed in your complaint will be corrected in response to your FTC complaint.

I am also willing to bet that if you filed suit in federal court against the CRAs and all furnishers the majority of the problems would be corrected in 90 to 180 days.

I see a great opportunity here to get a lot of negative OC accounts deleted.

[luckyduck]

A closed account may not have a monthly obligation now, but at one point it did, which is something many creditors want to see

I agree with that. And I do wonder if that information is supposed to remain even after the account is closed. I don't think it is. I think all that is supposed to remain is the high balance/loan amount/credit limit, the type of account, and possibly the terms of the account (60 month, revolving, etc). The only purpose of monthly payment is so the the lenders can determine what your current monthly obligations are so that they can figure your current debt:income ratio. The information is supposed to be a "credit snapshot", showing your current financial/credit status. If an account is closed, and there is no balance, then there also is no monthly obligation. Take for example, credit cards. The monthly obligation changes as your balance changes. They can't just report what the highest payment obligation was. They have to show what it currently is. Why would it be any different for installment loans?

It simply makes no sense why a CRA can "catch" a seven year TL, and it stops reporting, but they don't "catch" revolving accounts without credit limits, or high balances lower than current balances.

It's not necessarily about removing negs now. It's about obtaining a complete and accurate report from all three CRAs. Negs are being removed. Crap 1 and others still show no credit limit, and several TLs show current balances but a high balance of zero. I don't know the impact on the score, but I know it's not accurate, and I know it's a simple fix.

What's worse is when you dispute the credit limit on an otherwise good account, and they remove it altogether. It shouldn't need to be disputed in the first place. It's impossible to have a revolving account without a credit limit.

I am willing to bet that a year from now, none of the items you addressed in your complaint will be corrected in response to your FTC complaint.

I am also willing to bet that if you filed suit in federal court against the CRAs and all furnishers the majority of the problems would be corrected in 90 to 180 days.

I agree with this also. But, I don't have time to sue anybody right now, because I'm dealing with moving out of state, buying a house, selling a house, getting a job, and going through two custody battles, etc... For me, at this very point in time, suing is impractical, or next to impossible. However, once other things settle down in other areas, I do intend on going after a few furnishers, and CRAs. Those things are just stupid, and there's no sense in people having to dispute them. We all know missing credit limits have a high impact on scores. And regardless of the impact, we all know a high balance can't be lower than the current balance.

Someone else has sued (EX, Cap1, and Target), is still suing, and going pro se. I don't know of any progress yet because well, as you can see, they are still reporting this way. This is one of those things that may need to be spoken in volume, not just by a few individuals here and there. The FTC only takes action when they receive a lot of complaints. But they do take action. Court action is not necessarily as fast as people like to believe. Lawyers have a way of dragging things out for years when they want to. But courts cost money, and take a lot of time. Those are two things I simply don't have right now, and don't expect to have right away.