Showing posts with label Credit Checks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Credit Checks. Show all posts

Monday, May 16, 2011

Credit Error? It Pays to Be on V.I.P. List

May 14, 2011
Credit Error? It Pays to Be on V.I.P. List
By

 
The credit rating bureaus, whose reports influence everything from credit cards to mortgages to job offers, have a two-tiered system for resolving errors — one for the rich, the well-connected, the well-known and the powerful, and the other for everyone else.

The three major agencies, Equifax, Experian and TransUnion, keep a V.I.P. list of sorts, according to consumer lawyers and legal documents, consisting of celebrities, politicians, judges and other influential people. Those on the list — and they may not even realize they are on it — get special help from workers in the United States in fixing mistakes on their credit reports. Any errors are usually corrected immediately, one lawyer said.

For everyone else, disputes are herded into a largely automated system. Their complaints are often electronically ferried to a subcontractor overseas, where a worker spends, on average, about two minutes figuring out the gist of the matter, boiling it down to a one-to-three-digit computer code that signifies the problem — “account not his/hers,” for example — and sending a dispute form to the creditor to investigate. Many times, consumer advocates say, the investigation translates to a perfunctory check of its records.

“The legal responsibility of the credit reporting agencies and of the creditors is well established,” said Leonard Bennett, a consumer lawyer in Newport News, Va. “There is a requirement that they do meaningful research and analysis, and it is almost never done.”

Consumers who have trouble fixing errors through the dispute process can quickly find themselves trapped in a Kafkaesque no man’s land, where the only escape is through the court system.

“You are guilty before you are proven innocent in a situation like this,” said Catherine Taylor, 45, of Benton, Ark., who said she had been denied employment and credit because her filing was mixed up with a felon who had the same name and birthday.

Judy Johnson of Bossier City, La., was confused with a less creditworthy Judith Johnson, with a similar address and Social Security number. For nearly seven years, Judy Johnson, a 63-year-old credit manager for a building supply company, said she tried to remove the black marks from her credit report. But when she was denied a credit card, she knew the problem had returned — a third time. “This time, I was livid,” she said.

She ultimately brought a suit against one of the bureaus, and recently settled for an amount she cannot disclose. But the problems still linger. A deputy sheriff recently came to her door to serve her papers for a debt she says she does not owe.

The credit rating bureaus, private-sector companies that each attempt to track all American consumers’ credit use, have grown much more powerful over the last couple of decades as credit has become a crucial cog in the nation’s financial system. Their reports are used to formulate the all-powerful credit score, which lenders use to determine creditworthiness.

But as the bureaus’ work has become more important, consumer advocates say, regulation has not kept up, in large part because their overseer, the Federal Trade Commission, lacks broad authority. That could change once responsibility for the credit bureaus shifts to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which will be able to write rules and examine the credit agencies’ policies.

The bureaus, meanwhile, do not have an economic incentive to improve the system, consumer advocates say, because their main customers are the creditors, not consumers.

“There is no neutrality in the credit reporting agencies,” said John Ulzheimer, who has been an expert witness in more than 80 credit-related cases and is president of consumer education at SmartCredit.com. “They work for the lenders who buy credit reports from them, and anyone who suggests otherwise is not being intellectually honest.”

When asked about the V.I.P. category, TransUnion said all consumers “have the ability to speak to a live representative.” Equifax said consumers who received a free copy of their credit report were provided with a number for customer service.

Experian denied that it had V.I.P. lists. But a spokeswoman did say that prominent people deemed high risk — like politicians in an election year — might have their credit files taken offline so that creditors or other companies making inquiries could not get access without the bureau’s permission. Experian said those people did not receive any other special handling.

David Szwak, a consumer lawyer in Shreveport, La., who has handled dozens of credit cases, said that the V.I.P. designation and preferential treatment did exist at Experian, and he provided sworn testimony from former Experian employees that the category existed.

Estimates of credit reports with serious errors vary widely, anywhere from 3 to 25 percent. A recent study, paid for by the Consumer Data Industry Association, the trade group for the bureaus, found potential errors in 19.2 percent of reports, but said that less than 1 percent of them had disputes that, when settled, resulted in a meaningful increase in scores. Even 1 percent translates into millions of consumers, since there are at least 200 million files at each of the bureaus.

The F.T.C. is expected to deliver a nationwide study on credit report accuracy next year that could provide more clarity. It could also include recommendations for legislative action.

The volume of disputes has been rising as consumers borrow more and gain greater access to credit reports. The automated system was a response to that. A spokesman for the trade group said most consumers received an answer within 14 days.

Experian is the only bureau that still processes disputes in the United States, experts said, though most complaints wind their way through the same online system — unless the dispute involves a V.I.P.

“They get a lot more high-end treatment,” said Mr. Szwak, the lawyer, who has read the bureaus’ internal procedure manuals and deposed or cross-examined employees. The biggest difference at TransUnion and Equifax, lawyers said, is that V.I.P.’s disputes are specially handled domestically. Regular consumers’ files, meanwhile, may get priority treatment if they involve a time-sensitive issue, like a mortgage pending, or if the consumer is represented by a lawyer or dealing with fraud.

Last year, new rules went into effect to strengthen existing regulations on the accuracy of reports. The rules also allow consumers to dispute errors directly with the creditor. But critics say the rule lacks any teeth because consumers don’t have the right to sue the companies. (Individuals can, however, sue the bureaus and creditors after lodging a dispute through their system.)

But the problem, advocates say, is that consumers cannot vote with their feet. “They cannot remove their information from the bureaus,” said Chi Chi Wu, a staff lawyer at the National Consumer Law Center, who wrote a report on the automated dispute process in 2009, “or take their business elsewhere.”

Saturday, July 3, 2010

New Oregon law prohibits employer credit history checks on prospective employees

by Jessica Van Berkel, The Oregonian | Wednesday, June 30, 2010

When the recession forced Stacey Howard's painting business under, her credit history went down with it.

She narrowed her job hunt to companies that did not look at credit scores. "I self-selected out of a lot of jobs that I might have otherwise been qualified for... and when the economy is really bad that really limits your pool of potential employers," she said.

Howard has since found work, but staunchly supports a law that might have made her transition easier. It's one of six laws passed by the state Legislature that are set to take effect Thursday.

Under the new law, Oregon employers will no longer be able to use credit history as a factor in hiring, firing, demoting or suspending employees, unless they can establish that it's substantially related to the job.

The law originated from a concern that credit histories could be inaccurate or unfairly represent job seekers down on their luck, said Sen. Diane Rosenbaum, D-Portland,who sponsored the bill. Oregon unemployment is hovering around 10.6 percent, and people don't need another factor standing between them and a job, she said.

About 35 to 40 percent of employers nationally check credit scores, Bob Estabrook, a state Bureau of Labor and Industries spokesman, estimated. But the percentage is dropping as other states, including Washington and Hawaii, adopt similar laws.

When someone is unable to obtain a job because of a couple of missed rent payments, the credit evaluation is "arbitrary ... and people don't get a chance to explain," Estabrook said.

Using credit histories can also lead to inadvertent racial discrimination because African Americans and Latinos generally have lower credit scores, he said.

There are better tools employers can use to learn about prospective hires, like criminal history or drug tests, Rosenbaum said.

She said the most convincing testimony during hearings on the bill came from a credit agency representative who said there was no link between scores and job performance. Credit agencies are paid to check credit histories for employers and will lose business with the new law.

Law enforcement and financial agencies, including banks, will still be able to use credit scores as "proof of judgment," Rosenbaum said.

House Minority Leader Bruce Hanna, R- Roseburg, was confused when he heard that credit history would be considered an accurate representation of judgement for some jobs. The law imposes a double standard that is "simply foolish," he said.

The vote was divided near party lines with most House and Senate Republicans opposed.

Senate Minority Leader Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, also voted against the law. Credit reports "may be more valuable than a degree, school transcript or letters of recommendation in deciding whether or not to hire an applicant and allow them to have access to inventory, company assets and company proprietary information," he said in an email. "The credit report might disclose a pattern of disputes with businesses, bad checks, broken promises and other issues that indicate the applicant would not be a good risk."

But Howard, who was hired by a community development corporation after an extensive job search, said there has been no research proving a link between job performance and credit score. "All it shows is that they had a financial hardship ... There's no correlation there."

"I just don't think it's a valid tool," she said, "I don't think it's fair to use it in any context."

Saturday, March 6, 2010

States May Ban Credit Checks For Job Applicants

Any sort of non-criminal &/or civil history should be excluded from background checks for non-money handling jobs

States May Ban Credit Checks For Job Applicants
By Susie Madrak Friday Mar 05, 2010 4:00pm

Doing credit checks for jobs that don't give applicants access to money is not only a stupid thing, it's de facto discrimination based on class. The people who crashed the economy still have great credit records, while the people whose lives were ruined are the ones to bear yet another burden as a result. People shouldn't have to wait for state legislation - this should be a national law that flat out forbids the practice:

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – It's hard enough to find a job in this economy, and now some people are facing another hurdle: Potential employers are holding their credit histories against them.

Sixty percent of employers recently surveyed by the Society for Human Resources Management said they run credit checks on at least some job applicants, compared with 42 percent in a somewhat similar survey in 2006.

Employers say such checks give them valuable information about an applicant's honesty and sense of responsibility. But lawmakers in at least 16 states from South Carolina to Oregon have proposed outlawing most credit checks, saying the practice traps people in debt because their past financial problems prevent them from finding work.

[...] "If somebody is trying to get a job as a truck driver or a trainer in a gym, what does your credit history have to do with your ability to do that job?" Hixson said. He said he knows of no research that shows a person with a bad credit history is going to perform poorly.

Under federal law, prospective employers must get written permission from applicants to run a credit check on them. But consumer advocates say most job applicants do not feel they are in a position to say no.