A federal law is supposed to guarantee that credit report errors get fixed. So why do some people wind up spending months or even years trying to remove legitimate errors that are ruining their credit?
Take the case of Rahul Sharma of College Station,
Texas. With the Fair Credit Reporting Act
in place, it should not have
taken Sharma six years and a meeting with a lawyer to get errors ranging from bad
Social Security numbers to accounts that weren't his erased from his credit report.
But despite the decades-old consumer protection law, which guarantees consumers
the right to get legitimate errors off their reports, Sharma fell through the
credit reporting system's cracks.
Representatives across the credit reporting and
banking industry say that cases like Rahul Sharma's are rare. "Like anything,
[the credit reporting dispute process] is not a perfect system," says Nessa
Feddis, vice president and general counsel at the American Bankers Association.
"Sometimes mistakes happen."
However, consumer advocates and attorneys
experienced with handling Fair Credit Reporting Act cases say that Sharma's
hellish experience dealing with errors serious enough to deny him credit for
more than half a decade is a perfect example of the problems they
have been complaining about for years. The automated credit reporting dispute
system used by the three major credit bureaus
-- Experian, Equifax and
TransUnion -- is broken, they say, and is causing too many consumers such as
Sharma to miss out on the opportunity to apply for affordable credit, get a job
in certain industries or avoid rate hikes on everything from apartment rentals
to new cellphones.
"The dispute process has absolutely no value
whatsoever for consumers," says Leonard Bennett, a consumer lawyer in Newport
News, Va., who has repeatedly testified before Congress about the credit report
After a consumer has carefully gathered evidence proving the information isn't theirs and written a detailed dispute explaining the mistake, the credit bureau will
usually compress the letter into a two- to three-digit computer code and a 100-character summary, and send it electronically to another automated
system, where it may be reviewed solely by another computer, according to court documents and interviews with people familiar with the process. The credit bureaus used to toss consumer evidence as well, but they've since updated the system so that it accepts consumer documents.
If the automated system fails to catch and correct a mistake, consumers can
dispute again. However, if they complain too many times, the credit bureaus can
legally dismiss the complaints as frivolous and ignore them, trapping consumers in
a nightmare of bad credit they didn't earn. Consumers' only way out? Complain to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Or sue.
Bureaus required to investigate disputes
By law, any time a consumer says there is something wrong on his or her
reports, the credit bureaus are required to conduct "a reasonable
investigation" into the disputed information and remove anything they can't
verify as accurate. The reality, however, is that "the credit bureaus actually
spend very little time -- only a few minutes, at best -- investigating a
consumer's dispute," says DeVonna Joy, an attorney with the Consumer Justice
Law Center in Big Bend, Wis.
Consumer lawyers say that the short amount of time
that credit bureaus spend investigating consumers' disputes is proof the
bureaus are skirting the law.
Credit bureaus say the issue is more complicated.
They maintain that their systems are compliant with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and they do
the best they can with the resources they have.
"We take our obligations very seriously and complete
investigations and disputes as required," says Rod Griffin, director of
education at the credit reporting agency Experian. Lenders wouldn't trust them
if they didn't, he says. "Businesses rely on the accuracy of the credit history
to make sound decisions and if the credit reports were rife with inaccuracy,
any usefulness or credibility would be undermined and we would provide no
useful service," says Griffin. (Story continues below.)
Watchdog agency steps in
Until recently, the question of whether credit bureaus are investigating
consumers' disputes as thoroughly as the law requires has largely been left up to
juries to decide on a case-by-case-basis.
Before the federal consumer watchdog agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
gained regulatory authority on Sept. 30, 2012, the credit reporting industry was regulated solely by
the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC occasionally issued enforcement
actions against companies that it said violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. However,
the FTC's resources were extremely limited, says Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney
for the National Consumer Law Center in Boston.
As a result, many of the credit bureaus' dispute
practices remained an industry secret, apart from snippets that were revealed
in court cases and through congressional testimony, and the bureaus largely escaped serious regulatory scrutiny.
changing, however. In October 2012, the CFPB began formally accepting consumer
complaints about the credit reporting system and began relaying those
complaints directly to the credit bureaus. Around the same time, it
also published the first-ever comprehensive report on the credit reporting
industry, giving consumers a never-before-seen glimpse behind the scenes.
than a year later, the credit reporting industry updated its dispute system so that consumer documents can be electronically transmitted
to lenders and other data furnishers. Previously, any supporting evidence that
consumers submitted was left at the agencies' processing centers.
February 2014, the CFPB issued another formal bulletin, this time warning
companies that supply consumer financial information directly to the credit
bureaus to properly investigate consumer disputes or else face hefty penalties.
advocates hope that by shining a bright spotlight on the credit reporting
industry and enforcing the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the CFPB will eventually begin
answering the highly controversial questions that have split consumer advocates
and industry leaders for years. For example: When it comes to credit report
disputes, what exactly is a "reasonable investigation" under the law?
And are credit bureaus -- and the furnishers that provide them with the
information that make up their reports -- expending enough financial resources
to keep a reasonable majority of consumers from going through unnecessary
turmoil trying to get errors removed from their reports?
mostly automated system If the CFPB decides to schedule any more on-site visits to the credit reporting agencies,
consumer advocates say one of the first stops on their route should be the
agencies' processing centers where the disputes initially get reviewed.
The dispute process has absolutely no value
whatsoever for consumers.
-- Leonard Bennett
Most of those trips will require a passport. All
three credit bureaus have outsourced at least part of their dispute programs to
contractors abroad, says consumer lawyer Leonard Bennett.
There, foreign workers quickly scan consumers' disputes
for relevant information and compare them with preset computer codes that
describe typical consumer disputes. For example, a code might say "not
his/hers" or "claims paid the original creditor before collection status or
paid before charge-off." Or, a dispute code may be even more general, such as
"consumer states inaccurate information," with a note to the creditor to
"provide and confirm complete ID and account information."
Once the worker has determined what code best fits
the dispute, he or she will type the code into a brief online form called an Automated
Dispute Verification Form (ACDV), along with a 100-character summary (around 20
words) of the dispute and scanned copies of any additional evidence the consumer sent, and send that form electronically to the original
furnisher of the information.
That, says Bennett, is the full extent of the credit
bureau's investigation process. "Once the data, your 10-page letter and all
your exhibits and documents or affidavit, has been reduced to the two- or three-digit
code, the credit bureaus' involvement is over," says Bennett.
The employees don't conduct any other type of
investigation, he says. Instead, their "single job is to read the letter as
quickly as possible [and] determine which of a limited number of two- or three-digit
codes best describes that consumer dispute."
Norm Magnuson, vice president of the consumer
reporting agency trade group, the Consumer Data Industry Association,
describes a similar process. "Almost all disputes now are handled
electronically," confirms Magnuson. "There's a process where it comes to one of
the CRAs and they input what the complaint is about."
Disputes are processed electronically, he says, in
order to accommodate as many disputes as possible within the 30-day time frame
that credit bureaus are allowed, by law, to investigate a dispute. "The genesis
of this is that years and years ago, one of the criticisms was that it took too
long to respond to complaints," says Magnuson.
"Almost all of the disputes that come in, they're
fairly standard," he adds. However, he admits, some consumers with more
complicated disputes do fall through the system's cracks.
Glossary of terms
ABA - American Bankers Association
ACDV - Automated Consumer Dispute Verification Form
CDIA - Consumer Data Industry Association
CFPB - Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
CRA - Credit Reporting Agency
e-Oscar - Online Solution for Complete and Accurate Credit
FCRA - Fair Credit Reporting Act
FTC - Fair Trade Commission
"We try to devise a system that can accommodate people
and get back to them in a timely manner, and I think that's what the system
does," says Magnuson. "At least in 97 percent of the cases."
If consumers' cases are more complicated, they can
also try calling a customer service representative by phone, says Experian's Griffin,
where they will get more personal attention. "Our representatives spend as much
time as necessary to resolve an issue when they are on the phone with someone,"
Disputing by phone doesn't necessarily mean consumers will get a full airing of their disputes once they are translated onto
paper, says the Consumer Justice Law Center's DeVonna Joy. "In litigation, I
get their records and [the dispute] is reduced to one or two sentences and you
know they talked more than that," she says.
leave it up to the furnisher to investigate a dispute Once
the credit bureaus' employees are finished translating a dispute into an ACDV
form, they send that form to the original supplier of the information through an
electronic portal called e-Oscar. Usually, any supporting evidence that the
consumer submitted with the dispute gets left at the bureau's processing
center, say consumer lawyers.
"Initially, we don't necessarily transmit all of the
documentation that comes to us in every case," says Griffin. "But we'll send it
to the lender if necessary."
At that point, the credit bureau's investigation is
done. "The credit reporting company's role is to accurately report what lenders
are telling us is in their records," says Griffin. "We don't have direct access
to a business's records," he says, so the bureaus must rely on the furnisher to
investigate their records and ensure that they are accurate.
Consumer advocates say that's not an excuse. "If
they don't have access to the files, they should ask for them," says the
National Consumer Law Center's Chi Chi Wu. "The credit reporting agencies like
to say they're just a library. They're just a database. But that's not true,"
she says. "The consumer reporting agencies are supposed to have an independent
role," says Wu. "They're not supposed to be parroting the furnisher, which is
what they're doing now."
The duty to actively and substantially investigate a
dispute -- and examine any relevant evidence -- is in the case law, she says.
What's a 'reasonable investigation'?
For example, Newport News-based lawyer Leonard Bennett points to a 1997 third
circuit case, Cushman
v. TransUnion, that he says sets the standard for a
"reasonable investigation" under the law. "It's the most-often cited from coast
to coast," says Bennett.
We take our obligations very seriously and complete
investigations and disputes as required. Businesses rely on the accuracy of the credit history
to make sound decisions and if the credit reports were rife with inaccuracy,
any usefulness or credibility would be undermined and we would provide no
-- Rod Griffin
Experian director of education
In that case, the judge ruled that the credit
reporting agency TransUnion violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to
compare evidence, such as mismatched handwriting samples, and independently
verify the misinformation that the original furnishers, American Express and
Chase, were reporting.
The 1997 case, in which Pennsylvania resident
Jennifer Cushman's credit reports were littered with accounts opened by an
identity thief, is a good example of how consumers' legitimate errors get repeatedly
verified, say the attorneys.
Furnishers, such as banks or debt collectors, are also
required by the act to conduct a "reasonable investigation" of a consumer's
dispute. However, their investigation processes vary and many rely on automated
systems as well.
For example, says Paul Hartwick, a spokesman for
J.P. Morgan Chase, in an email, "We may receive credit bureau disputes from
either individual consumers or from the credit bureaus. We have automated
processes for handling both types of disputes."
Hartwick says that the bank's automated systems are
set up to catch more complicated errors, such as when a clerical error at Chase
caused the bank to misreport a consumer's information.
However, consumer lawyers say that multiple court
cases have demonstrated that many furnishers' investigation systems are
inadequate. "All they're doing is checking to see if what's in their computer
system is the same information that's in the ACDVs," says Leonard Bennett. So,
"what happens is, unless the creditor itself made the correction to its
computer system, the dispute process is hopeless," says Bennett.
Nessa Feddis of the American Bankers' Association
disagrees with that description. "I don't know how they know that unless
they've been inside the bank," says Feddis.
"It can't just be, 'This is what it's in our files and that's what matched,'"
she says. "They have to do something more than that."
However, Chi Chi Wu says that evidence shows not
all furnishers are double-checking their own information. "In the case law,
it's been documented of furnishers where all they do is check their own
database," she says.
"In my mind, and I think in the minds of other
people, [a reasonable investigation] means actually having a human being look
into a matter," says Wu. "None of that happens with an automated system."
Cary Flitter, a consumer lawyer and law professor in
Philadelphia, says that credit bureaus and information furnishers' decision to
automate the dispute process, rather than staff it with trained investigators,
comes down to dollars and cents.
"It's a business decision about the level of
accuracy that they want competing with the business cost of fully or properly
administering disputes," Flitter says. "At the end of the day, that's where it
"If they get it wrong, they get it wrong," adds
Flitter. "The great majority of them don't do anything about it."