The careless errors of credit reporting agencies • Hacker News Board

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#151

Post by tacostakohashi » Sun, Sep 11, 2016, 6:44 PM UTC

ianlevesque wrote: post #87

thechao wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For instance: Time Warner Cable screwed up my cable package, charging me 220$ (a la carte) rather than 90$ (bundle). I contacted them, they admitted the mistake, and fixed the next month---I still ended up out 65$. I'd really like that money (moral imperative), but there's no legal way for me to seek relief for that small amount. If TWC messes up 1/50 accounts, once a year, for 50$, then they stand to make 500k--1mm$…

Why not self-represent in small claims court?

It's a nice idea, but pretty much impractical if you happen to have a job.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#152

Post by tedunangst » Sun, Sep 11, 2016, 6:44 PM UTC

graeme wrote: post #35

bluedino wrote: post #4

The credit reporting system probably wouldn't work if you had to have the account holder's 'permission' to add events to it - you have to do it in this automated way. Although it can be a pain, the responsibility of if your credit report is accurate falls on you, the consumer. You should many of the free services to check your credit and then dispute any events that aren't correct. Most people don't have issues but y…

Isn't it libel to spread incorrect information about others, that is damaging, and that is certified as a true belief?

Only if you know the information is false.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#153

Post by MrFoof » Sun, Sep 11, 2016, 6:44 PM UTC

My father and I have the same first name and middle initial (but different middle names).

As a result, I've spent at least 1 entire calendar month in the past decade to "disentangle" our credit reports. With Equifax it wasn't finally resolved until I showed up unannounced at a regional office in a suit.

Yet again, we're entangled with TransUnion (after last resolving it 18 months ago), with me having to enter security questions as if I were my father in order to confirm my identity.

The most maddening part is it is extremely difficult to talk to someone in the US if you have a problem with any of the large three bureaus.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#154

Post by diggernet » Sun, Sep 11, 2016, 6:44 PM UTC

loeg wrote: post #30

kartan wrote: post #3

How much is this connected to not having a real id card? For me is always weird when you see things like "no flight lists" and it is just a list of names. In Spain or Sweden your ID will be listed and the rest of people named like you spared of being harassed. Another concept that I don't understand is that USA's social security number has to be kept secret or otherwise your identity can be stolen. How that is even p…

> How much is this connected to not having a real id card? Social security number is sort of that. But various businesses keep accepting it blindly from fraudsters ("identity thieves"). So for now it remains semi-private because it is overused for authentication. > Another concept that I don't understand is that USA's social security number has to be kept secret or otherwise your identity can be stolen. How that is e…

... and not even necessarily unique.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#155

Post by popmystack » Sun, Sep 11, 2016, 6:45 PM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #101

ThomPete wrote: post #83

The US is as far as I know the only country in the world who have a positive creditscore system. At least in Europe it's mostly based on a negative creditscore i.e. you are trusted by definition but if you don't pay your bills you end up not being allowed access to credit. In the US they don't trust you per definition and instead you have to prove that you are good with money by basically creating debt and then payin…

>you are trusted by definition I felt pretty "trusted by definition." Citi gave me a credit card with a $3,000 limit as a college freshmen. A few years later I had an $8,000 limit card and a $10,000 limit card. I bought my car certified-pre-owned under a program that writes favorable low-cost loans to recent college graduates with no or limited credit history (with an offer letter or paystubs). You just aren't truste…

>Citi gave me a credit card with a $3,000 limit as a college freshmen.

How old are you? Just a few years ago, despite making a very decent amount of money and having no marks on my credit, it took an entire year for me to get a credit card. Reason: lack of credit history. A lot of people have similar stories.

>This depends on your definitions a little bit.

The part where you spend money that isn't yours and then pay it off later. That's debt.

Personally, I've learned the game so to speak and now continually get out outrageously good offers for cars, credit cards, home loans, you name it. I have a about $90k~ worth of available credit to me on my CC's alone. But despite having an incorrect black mark for a medical bill that's reported by _ONE_ CRA (the others removed it after I gave them proof that the debt wasn't valid, Experian refuses to listen and because it got reviewed once they won't review it again), I get better offers now than I did when I had a squeaky clean record.

It's an absurdly backwards system. Get debt to get more debt. Hope CRA's don't fuck anything up. Credit card management has no indication how I'll manage a loan (whether a house or car) due to the nature of spending and utilization, but financial institutions treat it as such.

Quite frankly we need "stricter" credit laws across the board.

1. Start out with a "default" score at the very least.

2. Cap interest rates on CC's (20% APR is stupid). No reason a CC should have an interest rate of above 12%.

3. Don't allow medical debts to be displayed in pulls from CRA's. If the institution really wants to see "everything", make them pay a decently high fee for it. They must also explicitly state that in their loan consideration for you, they took into account medical debt. Craft laws around whether or not financial institutions should be able to consider these debts, depending on the loan being offered.

4. Prevent employers from pulling credit history. Your finances are not their business.

5. Prevent landlords from pulling credit history. They are not loaning you money. If they want to pull your credit history, then they need to also contribute to it positively (i.e. report payment history during the length of your lease, accurately).

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#156

Post by cortesoft » Sun, Sep 11, 2016, 6:46 PM UTC

fragsworth wrote: post #144

ufmace wrote: post #74

Speaking of credit annoyances, I've seen a lot of "dark patterns" appearing on the credit agency websites for ordering your Federally-mandated free annual credit report. Their workflow for getting the credit report is structured to push you towards signing up for some kind of monthly subscription to some monitoring service, to the point where it's very difficult to find the buttons to just get the free credit report.…

If you accidentally sign up for a monthly subscription, call your credit card company and tell them never to pay it and to charge back any fees, because it was too difficult to cancel.

Then the credit agency will ding your credit report for not paying your bill...

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#157

Post by notahacker » Sun, Sep 11, 2016, 6:46 PM UTC

ufmace wrote: post #74

Speaking of credit annoyances, I've seen a lot of "dark patterns" appearing on the credit agency websites for ordering your Federally-mandated free annual credit report. Their workflow for getting the credit report is structured to push you towards signing up for some kind of monthly subscription to some monitoring service, to the point where it's very difficult to find the buttons to just get the free credit report.…

UK credit score provider Experian used to rely on dark patterns[1] but seems to have moved towards offering consumer finance price comparison services with the useful side benefit of being able to search for stuff you'll be approved for. (I doubt they get many signups for the £14.99 a month "premium" service now they're pushing the free one alongside it)

I can't think of many more unconscionable models for a secondary revenue stream than targeting people who are insecure about their finances and bad at reading small print and trying to get them to pay nearly 100x the price they need to pay for information for some extras they're unlikely to use.

[1]in the UK they're actually allowed to charge a small one-off handling fee of up to £2 if you request your credit store. But "free" plus a large recurring charge for bundled extra data if you don't cancel within 30 days was more profitable...

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#158

Post by apatters » Sun, Sep 11, 2016, 6:47 PM UTC

bsbechtel wrote: post #99

sschueller wrote: post #14

The whole credit reporting system is a money making racket and there is zero interest in keeping the information in it accurate. No one is held responsible for mistakes and the suffering people go thought because of it.

So do you have a suggestion for a system that works better, or do you prefer banks lend the money from your savings account without any sort of evaluation of how likely it is to be paid back?

The banks have a profit motive for assessing credit risk accurately. They are the ones who make money if this is done right. So why don't the banks pay for it? Why are we subsidizing the banks' business model by paying for credit reports at all? I don't have to pay if I want to receive more than one bank account statement per year, and bank accounts are another product the bank uses to make money off of me, just like loans.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#159

Post by Drdrdrq » Sun, Sep 11, 2016, 6:47 PM UTC

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #140

ThomPete wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absurdly backwards because it's asking you to create debt which normally is the opposite of showing you are good with money and I would question the validity of seeing people paying back limited debt to be indicative of ex. borrowing for a house. You could instead just look at the history of their debit card usage to figure out whether they are trustworthy. As I said though I understand why they do it, it's just…

They don't care if you're "good with money". They care that you can demonstrate a habit of making payments on time.

This. It is also the reason the system seems weird to me - their incentive is not same as mine as a customer.

Re: The careless errors of credit reporting agencies

#160

Post by saryant » Sun, Sep 11, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #148

superuser2 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being an authorized user on a parent's credit card does build credit history for the child. I did not have that, or any cosigned loan.

But you are an american right? You spent your whole life in the US? So you have a history with a bank I am assuming. I don't understand exactly why I am being down-voted. The system is at it is it's not something I made up.

Retail banking history is not a factor in credit scores.