First Name: akin
City: hyattsville
Country: United States
State or Province: MD
Postal Code: 20785
Organization Name: blessing medical
Comment Info: =================
General Comment:
I want to commend the regulators for trying to fix a big problem that
affects the
economic life being of all Americans. There are many problems:
1. The present regulation allows unscrupulous merchants to make report
to credit agency without asking the merchant to explain or give prove
whether the
person being reported has disputed the charges or the circumstances. A fix
would
be to require merchants and collecting agents to report delinquencies but
must
also include statement to the credit bureau that the consumer has disputed
the
charges.
2. Present system allow the consumer to write up to 100 words to make
dispute after the credit bureau has released the information for use to the
third
party who often deny the consumer credit and then send the information to
the
consumer afterwards. The damage is already done because credit reports also
show how many times one has applied for credit recently. In addition,
disputing
charges after denial is like being found guilty and appealing to have your
life back.
Then, it is usually very difficult. Merchants are using the present system
to
blackmail consumers to settle even in illegitimate cases where the consumer
has
done no wrong but out of desperation to get that house.
3. The 100-word statement is useless and ineffective. It does not restore
the consumer?s credit reputation and in my own situation, it was usually
rejected
by the credit bureau outright---that is what has happened to me. Furnishers
usually provide evidence of debt that credit bureau cannot or do not have
the power
to investigate authenticity so the consumer is always at the disadvantage.
4. All banks, creditors and mortgagers should be able to report good
records of credit--so that only few merchants with problems are seen on your
credit report as what they are ?outliers.? For example, WorldCom and
Verizons
were overcharging their customers and later pleaded guilty and made refunds.
Those customers who disputed the charges before Verizons and Worldcom were
finally caught were disadvantaged and there was no record at credit bureau
saying
that Verizons and Worldcom have been found to overcharge therefore the
customer may have had legitimate reason. Another thing, in 2002, I bought a
plan
with Verizons and stated having phone problems which was not fixed for
7-days.
The contract was cancelled, but Verizons wanted $75 early termination fee.
By the
second month, Verizons has tagged on $230 worth of penalties now requesting
$300. That was the sum reported to credit bureau. I wrote my 100-word
statement
and got the State of Maryland involved?the credit bureau would not insert
any
statement even with the State Government involved.
5. It does not make sense to say Mr. A owes me $100 in 2003 on the
credit report without stating the circumstances. An idea would be to report
Mr. A
owes me $100 for early termination of his Verizons contract. Mr. was given
opportunity to pay or dispute but failed, or Mr. A is disputing this charge
with us.
That is a "fair credit reporting." It allows the furnisher of information to
think about
just reporting information. Another example, a hospital might report that
Mr. A
owes $300, because--he received treatment for $3000, his insurance paid
$2700
and the balance was $300. Mr. A has ignored our requests, or Mr. A believes
that
the hospital is overcharging in his reply to our request. Anyone looking at
that
credit report can evaluate the report objectively without automatically
assuming
that Mr. A is a bad credit risk! Then, and only then, can the 100-word
statement
have any impact. After all, who wants to listen to a debtor?
6. Unscrupulous merchants and credit collectors have too much power
because they can report anything--but forcing them to state the
circumstances,
whether--the charges has been disputed rather than just reporting a number
of
dollars and months of delinquency is totally biased. It assumes that the
furnisher
of information on consumer is always right.
Finally, I want the regulators to understand that most negative
information on
credit record arise because the furnisher of credit information is aggrieved
and did
not want to go to court--so they now use destruction of people's credit as a
way to
get back at the consumers. One can say that the consumer can go to court?
that?s a laugh! Someone may raise an argument the information to credit
reporting
bureau would be too bulky---that is not sufficient excuse, those reporting
good
credit would have shorter forms and those reporting bad would give more
details?
what is bulky in that.
