Jump to content

Thinking Caps On?


Recommended Posts

Here is a good one for everybody to consider.

As we are all aware, all CRA's are liable under the FCRA. Right?

I just had a discussion with someone who works in the collection department of our state's Tax Board. The subject of liens came up and who reports them to the CRA's. His response was as follows:

"We do not report liens to anyone's credit reports. How it is done is the CRA's check Public Records and insert them themselves."

Here's the question for everyone:

IF the CRA's are liable under the FCRA, then shouldn't they notify us in writing as described in FCRA 623(7) if reporting negative information?

My opinion is that they must notify as described. What does everyone think of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

glad to hear someone is digging into this pretty deep right now as I have a $111 tax lien as well that I never knew anything about until I pulled my CRs last year and noticed it. I never was informed, never rcvd any correspondence, etc. I tried disputing with CRAs and it came back verified and then all of a sudden, the dates and status changed. They changed the status to "Paid" and also "released". The killer is that it is only $111 and it is from 1995. Once I disputed it, it re-activated the date to 2006 so now I am stuck with this for the next 5 yrs. My understanding is that nobody reports these and the CRAs pick them up. I am wondering if you could keep me posted by PM even on your discoveries regarding if the CRAs then have to abide by the FCRA. How does one ever get this removed? Who does one dispute it with? If I start a dispute again, can they re-age it again like they did last time? I am telling you, I never even knew about it, didnt do anything but dipute it and it went from being 11 yrs old and unpaid to Paid and released. I did absolutely no activity, spoke to nobody, etc. I only did an online dipute. It is being reported on TU and EX but not EQ. Any and all help is greatly appreciated because it appears that this public record is really harmful to my overall credit score and report. tnx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got it, direred, my point exactly.

Which brings up another question. How can one (CRA's) be held liable under a specific law, as a whole, but, can pick and choose which respective section will apply to them and which won't?

Something is not right with this.

To add, while reading FCRA 623 after creating this thread, I found something else that is quite CS in my eyes.

Subsection (7)(F) "Safeharbor" says simply that it is safe for them to not notify of reporting negative info if they cannot, by law, contact a consumer, such as in receipt of a C&D, for example. Here is my problem with this. If a CA received a C&D for one account, but, months later, are assigned a whole new account, from same OC, the previous should not carry to the new, in my eyes. Yes, they may be able to claim this as it does seem feasible as they do have prior knowledge of restrictive or no communication. But, to me, how can a consumer properly defend themselves for this type of action when they have no prior knowledge of new account, such as realize only upon receipt of a current CR.. I'm looking at the "least sophisticated consumer" for my reasoning. Please jump in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got it, direred, my point exactly.

Which brings up another question. How can one (CRA's) be held liable under a specific law, as a whole, but, can pick and choose which respective section will apply to them and which won't?

Because there are loopholes big enough to drive a truck through, and those loopholes hurt consumers.

1) There is no law regulating when hard inquiries fall off.

2) There is no clear distinction between hard and soft inquiries.

3) There is no law requiring positive credit to continue to be reported for ANY period of time.

4) There is no law requiring the CRAs to disclose the Date of First Delinquency to third parties (even though data furnishers are required to provide it to the CRAs).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right there.

1. The only time you see mention of a hard 2 yr timeframe is on your CR when you receive it.

2. As to exact statute, you're right as I haven't seen one. But, I wonder if they can avoid it as most soft's are pulled by current open accounts, or a company looking for a specific score range. Don't know for sure.

3. There used to be a matter where a CRA would note on your CR that on a certain date, the TL will go positive. But, again, no statute. We had this on an old CR years ago. Haven't seen one since.

4. Not sure on this one. Could be a privacy thing.

direred, something else I just thought of.

As to my last post about the "safeguard" issue, I was sitting watching TV when it came to me. Think about this and respond. Others please join in.

As stated in that subsection regarding if, by law, communication was restricted or no more. If this is true and allowable, then the consumer is violated as the CA will never send out the initial communication, thus, not allowing the consumer to dispute. How is this proper? Plus, how would it affect a claim if it went to court? The consumer could play dumb and walk away easily. True, the CA could diplay the C&D, but, the consumer still has the right to dispute, which, of course, would result in 809© being used. Someone has had a bad day as to writing these statutes, or laws, if you will. Remember, all of these debt matters are "color of law, not real, or common law". I enjoy the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am dealing with this very situation right now. Pulled my CR awhile back and found a tax lien/judgment from the great state of Kansas for 2003 income taxes. I made payment arrangements with the state back in 2003 and was late w/the last one. No mention of judgment or lien when I called to pay the last time. Nothing. It automatically got entered into judgment. The state didn't follow their own laws for process service and filed in the wrong county (filed in Sumner, I live in Sedgwick county). When I went to the Sumner county court house and filed the satisfaction paperwork in 2006 I asked if they were going to update the CRA's and show it satisfied. I got the same answer as retmar. We don't report. The CRA's pay an A$$CLOWN to go to the clerk's office and collect all public records. It's complete BS! I am wondering if not being served and it being filed in the wrong county are reasons for a vacate. Any ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to my last post about the "safeguard" issue, I was sitting watching TV when it came to me. Think about this and respond.

Right now, things are turning in my own case, and I'm very unhappy right now, and in bad need of albuterol. So I'll respond later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time I try to do deep thinking about the FDCPA or FCRA, I get a headache (sort of like if I'd actually had my albuterol with me). There's deep holes that bug me, but then again, that's seen from the consumer side and they weren't really written in a way that was "for us."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got that right, direred!

Here is a new one I just found today. What I did was read the FACT Act from the Board of Governeors of the Federal Reserve System. It spells out this negative reporting matter and what is and isn't legal, blah, blah. Mind you, the whole of this change to the FCRA is to assist in curbing identity theft. Keep this in mind while reading below.

The actual statue, as written in the FCRA, says "shall" notify. BUT, the board wrote "models" to go by.

#1 model: We may report

#2 Model: We have told

Either one is legit. #1 as long as it shows on a monthly statement or seperate.

Now, here is where I see the ignorance of this board and for some to understand why direred made the comment. If the reporting party uses model #1, how is the consumer going to know that something was reported? Hmmmmmmmm, when they pull their annual CR, or, when they have a CR pulled to obtain credit. In short, if a reporter used #1 and it turned out to be a result of ID theft, the consumer is screwed. We all know how long it takes to resolve ID theft. In the meantime, the consumer's score is in the toilet and will remain until resolved, which means no new credit. Either way, who pays for this? The consumer who got dinged. Not fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.