Why the credit report dispute process is broken
By Kelly Dilworth
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|
"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," he says.
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 useful service.
|-- 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 falls."
"If they get it wrong, they get it wrong," adds Flitter. "The great majority of them don't do anything about it."