Rebuilding credit - GE Money

[IBroke]

The only time I have seen a sub prime card hurt either a score or a credit application is 1. if the limit on the card is a "toy limit" or 2. on manual review. The pure existence of which card is which on your credit report is not going to make any kind of difference. Sub prime cards tend to give much lower limits which when looked at for limit increases and new credit can be a negative factor if they see a lot of really small limits. And upon manual review the lender could skoff at a Credit One card...but I think that reason would be much lower on the totum pole.

I am a firm believer in credit unions post bankruptcy. They are really the bread and butter of rebuilding.

Exactly. In a manual review, I'd certainly prefer the Discover with a $20k limit and $200 usage over the Credit One with a similar utilization. The lower limit is also maxed out much faster. But score-wise, you can achieve anything with the subprime-card as well.

[IBroke]

So basically, you are saying that lenders openly violate the FCRA? I'd love to get more into detail. As far as I know, the FCRA clearly states that derogatory information has to be removed after 7 (1/2) years of the DOFD. Why doesn't this law apply to Full Factuals as well? Are these companies above the law?

Sooo, I investigated this topic a bit and it turns out that unless you're applying for more than a $150K loan or life insurance or a job exceeding $75K annual income, the use of full factuals containing information that has aged off is NOT legal. The FCRA is quite clear on that. The use of these reports is clearly defined and circumstantial and not just a question of desire. In addition, information that was disputed and as a result, removed, mustn't be reported under any circumstances.

So when you are applying for a regular CC or an auto-loan, full factuals are a big, fat No-Go.

[df04527]

Mixing up words - you should have been a lawyer -- lol - I didn't say "aged" off -- I said deleted...... I also said full factuals, i never said they use them every time, and I also said manual reviews. Why the attitude with the underlining, capitalizing etc?

I'm a realist so let's talk about your proclamation of them violating the fcra. Whoopie. There is what is written into law that dictate what they will and won't do then there is what is reality - like it or lump it - it is the way it is, very similar to many other industries, housing comes to mind. Try proving they used a full factual and they didn't have your authorization on that teeny line on the application that you filled out giving them the authorization. Do you think they would spell out which report they will use? Do most consumers know there is more than one? Then how would you know they did use the full factual? Would you ask? Would they tell you? Yeah I'm sure of it. If you knew half of what takes place in this business - it would be on 60 minutes in a flash as a huge scandal. It's a dirty business. Like a pig with lipstick.

Differences of opinions are awesome and a powerful thing, you cross the line though, in my eyes, when you bold, capitalize, underline and get attitude about it. I am offering my perspective on the world of credit reporting, credit scores and the best way to rebuild based entirely on the intimate knowledge I have been lucky enough to obtain and 20+ years on both sides of this business.

Ugh - now you've given me an attitude. Merry Christmas.

[IBroke]

Mixing up words - you should have been a lawyer -- lol - I didn't say "aged" off -- I said deleted...... I also said full factuals, i never said they use them every time, and I also said manual reviews. Why the attitude with the underlining, capitalizing etc?

Funny - I wasn't even quoting you in my last post.

As we both know, there are 3 cases where lenders can obtain a full factual - you, however, claimed that they can see deleted information if they "desire". To me, that is a hell of a difference. Let's not be silly and start the "could-game". Anything "could" happen but I'd rather stick to the law. Indeed, you said "deleted" - but I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were talking about aged off information (after all, if something ages off, it gets deleted as well). If an item is indeed deleted through a dispute, keeping it on any kind of credit-report is illegal. But I guess that doesn't matter either since they still "could" keep it on.

I'm a realist so let's talk about your proclamation of them violating the fcra. Whoopie. There is what is written into law that dictate what they will and won't do then there is what is reality - like it or lump it - it is the way it is, very similar to many other industries, housing comes to mind. Try proving they used a full factual and they didn't have your authorization on that teeny line on the application that you filled out giving them the authorization. Do you think they would spell out which report they will use? Do most consumers know there is more than one? Then how would you know they did use the full factual? Would you ask? Would they tell you? Yeah I'm sure of it. If you knew half of what takes place in this business - it would be on 60 minutes in a flash as a huge scandal. It's a dirty business. Like a pig with lipstick.

Differences of opinions are awesome and a powerful thing, you cross the line though, in my eyes, when you bold, capitalize, underline and get attitude about it. I am offering my perspective on the world of credit reporting, credit scores and the best way to rebuild based entirely on the intimate knowledge I have been lucky enough to obtain and 20+ years on both sides of this business.
Ugh - now you've given me an attitude. Merry Christmas.

I don't know about you - but I still think it's necessary to tell other members what the legal basis is. If you apply for a $30K auto-loan, have a spotless credit-file after rebuilding credit for 8 years and are denied due to a repo 10 years ago, it would be great to know that what just happened was illegal. I'm not that type of person that accepts violations of my own rights and the law simply because it happens to others, too. People are robbed on the street. Happens over and over. Every day - but guess what? I'd still file a police-report!

If I authorized them, they didn't violate any law. Again, a huge difference between just "going ahead and doing it". And keep in mind that it's not the lender/employer who might get into trouble. The FCRA puts the pressure on the data-provider.