FACT, E-OSCAR and Inaccurate Credit Reports

by ACCESS Staff Writer

With the 2003 amendments to the FCRA, and the introduction of the FACT Act, millions of consumers will see the quality of their credit reports degrade even further.

FACT stands for Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act, but in reality it is just our government trying to appease millions of consumer who complain about the current credit reporting industry.

But they are only appeasing us in "name" only, because the Act itself will be causing all of us big problems.

Medical Information

Have you ever looked at you credit report and wondered who the heck is that business? It may be a tradeline or it may be an inquiry that occurred. With all the mergers, sell-offs (like JC Penneys sold their entire card services to MBNA) and corporate affiliations, you can no longer tell who these businesses are. You maybe able to guess by the dollar amount or by the dates, but you have to play Sherlock Holmes to figure it out.

Well one would think that in developing the FACT Act that our federal government would address this problem. Well we're wrong. Instead of making it easier, their about to make it harder for us all.

Now when it comes to medical accounts the national CRA's aren't even going to provide us the names of the creditors. Even if the name of the credit grantor implies something medical, the CRA are going to place the word "MEDICAL" in lue of the credit grantor's name.

Therefore, if you have a good account with Tom's Medical Supplies, there is a chance that the word "MEDICAL" will replace the name.

So much for the word ACCURATE.

What is even worse, if you try to seek help from a re-seller to determine who this is on your credit report - they won't be able to tell you. (We haven't really figured out who will be able to tell you yet). Because the software the national CRA's use provide to disclose this information will no longer provide ANYONE with the name or address or telephone number of medical accounts.

So, when you go to try to get something resolved because of inaccurate information, good luck. Now on medical accounts you will be forced to deal directly with the national CRA's. And as everyone know, "the lights maybe on but you never find anyone home."

So much for the word FAIR.


E-OSCAR is an automated consumer dispute verification (ACDV) process. The national CRA's are demanding that everyone who provides information to them be on this system. If you don't get on the system, you CAN NOT provide information to a national CRA.

Now no one is against getting disputes resolved in a timely manner, but it has been our experience that E-OSCAR doesn't do that.

For years the major credit grantors have been doing automated dispute verification. Yes it's quick but it is also extremely inaccurate.

Have you ever seen your credit report merged with anothers? Have you ever seen wrong information on your credit report that you can prove is wrong? Have you sent information regarding a dispute to the CRA's only to have the incorrect information remain on your credit report? Well, you have E-OSCAR to thank for that.

With E-OSCAR the national CRA's NEVER send to the original creditor the information you provide them. It has a very limited summary of the problem. You are at the mercy of some lowly clerk who is scanning your letter, along with hunderds of others, trying to determine what to say in 30 words of less. And the documentation you sent which proves your point, what happens to that? It gets filed away, incase you should sue them. Or maybe it gets shredded in case you sue them. Either which way, it isn't used.

So much for the word FAIR.

To make matters even worse, the CRA's have taken it upon themselves to start charging creditors for this worthless piece of work. And to top it off, smaller creditors who use to supply information to your credit report manually, well, they are now shut off all together. These creditors will no longer be able to provide Universal Data Forms.

Not only that, but smaller creditor who are unable to link to E-OSCAR or those unwilling to pay will most likely just stop reporting any information.

Statistically, over 93% of all information supplied by creditors is positive information. Information that shows you are a good credit risk. Information that helps your point scores. Now all this information is being tossed out - not accepted. Thanks to the FACT Act.

So much for the word ACCURATE.

The FACT Act is the greatest destruction of the FCRA that we have seen in a long time. Our federal government should be ashamed.

I wish we had an automated system that would allow you to complain to your U.S. Representatives about this, but the best that we can do is provide a link to them.

To write to your Representatives click here.

To write to your Senators click here.

Written by ACCESS staff writer                                                                       Updated 6-3-14

Please Consider Financially Supporting Us.

We hope you found the above information helpful.

ACCESS relies solely on donations from individuals like you.
Contributions are greatly appreciated and much needed.

Click here to make a donation.




JZ  - Bureaus are private billion dollar companies!   |From:207.193.33.xxx |2009-03-31 19:55:04
People the credit bureaus make all there money on people with bad credit!

Be a pain in A$$$ to them blow them up with letters and calls lets get in there pocket

cat101  - Bureaus are...   |From:207.224.111.xxx |2009-03-31 20:40:06
Only one bureau is private (TU) the other two are publicly traded (Equifax & Experian)

But you are correct, there is no incentive within the bureaus to help our economy. They thrive on fear and bad credit. Regretfully, calling them & there is no live person. Writing them, it merely goes into a file.... need better ideas on how to affect their profit margins.
1) Don't buy their "fake" point score
2) Don't buy their monitoring system
3) Stop consuming their products....

Any other ideas are welcomed :)
Larry Dague  - Consumer Protection Bureau   |From:75.81.217.xxx |2012-08-12 20:19:43
This new entity has more teeth than the Federal Trade Commission with regard to violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. I taught the federal law for 19 years and have helped consumers with their complaints to the FTC when the dispute process does not work...but the FTC is under manned and the Attorney Generals don't even have a clue that they are also responsible for administering this federal law...
This new group, just recently formed, sends detailed write ups to the offender with a time frame for response...and promises follow up action if the complaint is not resolved....(it is too new to know what level of "action)...
The key is that lenders, collectors and even the bureaus will not react until they realize that someone is now watching who may blow the issue up and make it more public. Google Consumer Protection Bureau.
humble Abundance  - AMEX NEW LIES   |From:76.122.105.xxx |2009-04-16 17:36:00
Making a long story short. I visited Fairfield Resorts, RI. They requested a credit card and ID to reserve the vacation/ Solicittion. AMEX notified me Fairfield attempted to charge 2000.00 to the card, 3 times in 20 minutes. AMEX alerted me, placed a freeze on the account. Then months later they hit me wthn the charge, i contacted AMEX & communicated with the Executive office for over a year disputing the charges. So finally I instructed them to send me a copy of my signiture. they wroteback stating, "because I released my account to a Service estalishment. I am responsible. I couldnt find the meaning of this, i came to the conclusion they wanted to think I released the car to a automatic billing company. Iam still corrsponding with AMEX to have thi charge removed. IS THIS LEGIT or MORE BULL !!!!!!. Thanks
jmalmberg  - Re: Amex New Lies     |2009-04-16 18:00:39
Hold on here. If I understand your note, you were billed three times for the same thing, you notified Amex of this and who the merchant was, and they are saying that you are responsible. Is that pretty much it in a nutshell?
humble Abundance   |From:76.122.105.xxx |2009-04-17 11:40:18
Actually, Amex notified me that fairfield resorts did this. I contacted them followed through/ up. you have it right...
jmalmberg  - Re: Amex New Lies     |2009-04-17 14:17:35
Would you like us to run your story and contact AMEX on your behalf? I know a number of people who have not been overly happy with the way their credit card companies have been treating them lately. It might be time for us to run a first hand account. Let me know.
ygreen  - NEXT MOVE   |From:70.108.7.xxx |2010-03-23 15:56:09
I co-signed a vehicle for my ex-husband in May 2006, he was unable to make payments, so, the finance company came and repossess the vehicle in 2008. Now it gets complicated, however, I will give the short version:

1) Original creditor was Drive Financial
2) Drive Financial sold the vehicle at auction and forward the account to
3) Santander Consumer - Santander Consumer closed and transferred account to
4) Palisades Collection

Currently, Santander is on my Experian and TransUnion files. I disputed with the CRA's first, then I disputed with Santander, they respond to my investigation saying, "Santander and Drive Financial no longer owns the account." Should I sent copies of the letter from Santander to the two CRA's demanding that they delete this account from my credit files? If so, is there anything I sould include in my letter to the CRA's?

By the way, Palisades is not reporting on none of the three CRA's.

Thanks in advance.
jmalmberg  - Re: Next Move     |2010-03-23 16:48:20
Let me ask you what you are disputing? If you co-signed and the payments were not made, then unless something is unusual they have the right to place a negative report on your credit file. The owners of a debt also have the right to sell the debt.

Let me know.
ygreen  - NEXT MOVE   |From:158.59.19.xxx |2010-03-24 04:25:35
My dispute was the validity of the account with Santander. My attempt was to get Santander to remove the listing from my credit file being as though they no longer own the account. I thought that if they did not own the account, they could not report it to the CRA's.

It might be possible that I went about this dispute the wrong way. Open to thoughts.

Thanks again!
Cat101  - Next Move   |From:207.224.111.xxx |2010-03-25 20:50:35
How are Experian and TransUnion reporting your trade with Santander? "Charged Off to Collections?" "Balance Transfered?" "Balance Written Off?"

Please tell us how it is being reported.
Cat101  - Next Move   |From:207.224.111.xxx |2010-03-25 20:52:50
Also tell us what it shows as the "date last updated" or "date last reported"
Larry Dague  - Next Move     |From:75.81.217.xxx |2012-08-12 20:25:28
You cannot receive double jeopardy on an account. If the original lender has placed it with another agency, they must remove the balance...the new agency may place it. Santander took over the receivables of Drive...and therefore were actually a first party lender to you.
But Palisades buys their debt. So you have a couple of issues. 1)...Drive would have to remove any tradeline they have on the debt. 2) Palisades can start their date of obsolescence from the date they bought the debt..effectively starting your 7 years over at that time.
The good news is that companies that buy debt in large bulk usually purchase it for around seven cents on the dollar...so settling that debt at 20% of the amount due is still almost a 300 percent profit for them.
ygreen  - NEXT MOVE   |From:70.108.7.xxx |2010-03-26 14:32:31
Santander Consumers
Experian status is: transferred, closed. $9,997 written off.
Creditor's statement: account closed due to transfer
Recent balance: n/a
Date opened: 5/06
Repossession: 2/08
Charge off: 5/08

TransUnion status is: payment after charge off/collection
Remarks: Acct closed due to transfer
Date opened: 5/06
Date closed: 4/08
Balance: 0
Cat101  - Next Move   |From:207.224.111.xxx |2010-04-08 02:17:47
Based on what you stated above, what is being reported there is correct and you will get no resolve from a dispute process with the CRA's.

1) The account was closed/transfer - meaning it was sold & they no longer hold the account.
2) Last update of the trade line was 4/08 - date closed. It is now just an adverse tradeline waiting for it's seven years. It will fall off your credit report in 4/15.
3) It shows Zero balance, meaning nothing is owed to that creditor. So that only confirms that they no longer own the account.
4) Since balanced owed is zero, regretfully there is nothing to dispute.

You can however add a 100 (maybe 150) word statement to the credit report explaining the situation, but I don't believe that will accomplish anything.

Because the adverse trade is now two years old AND a zero balance, it doesn't cause much affect on your point score - which is ALL that most creditors look at today.

I also want you to know - what you see & what the creditors see on a credit report are two different things. What stands out like a sore thumb to you, is many times ignored by the creditor - especially when the balance says ZERO.

I hope this relieves some of your concerns.
YGREEN  - END OF THE ROAD   |From:158.59.19.xxx |2010-04-08 03:57:33
Cat101 - Thank you so very much for your comments.
Nick H  - Double Reporting?   |From:173.169.8.xxx |2010-05-25 17:28:14
I'm currently stuck in an issue. I had a load through Sovereign. The car was repo'd and loan C/O'd. Sovereign of course reported it and stopped its reports a few years ago after everything was done. Santander bought Sovereign and now Sovereign's report is still on my credit reports, AS WELL AS now Santander is newly reporting the account and actively reporting it as C/O&Past Due, even though it is the SAME account as Sovereign and it's already on my report. What recourse do I have? It does not seem legal.
Cathy  - Double Reporting   |From:207.224.111.xxx |2011-02-04 10:17:00
Nick - regretfully double reporting appears to occur frequently. But in reality, one is an old account and another is a new account. Usually you can tell this by looking at the last verified or updated date. Most likely what you will see is the Sovereign trade line hasn't been updated/verified since Santander purchased them. Therefore, it is just kinda hanging there.

If it has been more than a year since the trade line was update by Sovereign, you can try to ask that the account be verified by the CRA's - & most likely it will be removed.
MeghanWatts  - re     |From:91.201.66.xxx |2010-10-24 01:32:14
People deserve wealthy life time and credit loans or just consolidation loan can make it better. Because people's freedom relies on money.
ALTASanford28  - re     |From:91.201.66.xxx |2011-02-04 07:45:13
The home loans are very useful for people, which want to organize their business. In fact, it's not really hard to receive a short term loan.
Cathy  - ALTAASanford28   |From:207.224.111.xxx |2011-02-04 10:23:16
You are correct that short term, usually low balance, loans are not difficult to get. And can help to rebuild your credit. The best place to get these type of loans is from the band where you have your checking account at. I agree, credit is very useful and can help us have a higher standard of living; however, lack of financial acumen causes individuals to make poor decisions regarding the use of credit. When one lacks an understanding of interest & time & costs - you can actually make yourself poorer rather than richer due to bad decisions.
MoniqueHarper  - respond this post     |From:91.201.66.xxx |2011-04-07 02:08:53
Have no a lot of cash to buy a house? Do not worry, because that's available to take the loans to work out such problems. So take a short term loan to buy everything you need.
jmalmberg     |2011-04-07 09:08:10

If you are referring to pay-day loans, these are a lot more expensive than traditional credit and we don't recommend them.
BrennanAMBER22  - answer     |From:193.105.210.xxx |2011-08-07 19:39:56
I strictly recommend not to hold back until you earn big sum of cash to order goods! You should just get the loan or collateral loan and feel free
Only registered users can write comments!

3.25 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."