How to Make Credit Bureaus Delete ALL Files?

[mrgonzo]

I am located in florida, however this is a nationwide topic.

I would like to buy with cash from now on, cars, land, houses, etc. I do not feel that its legal for these credit bureaus to compile private data on me, it seems that it must be unconstitutional in some way.

Could I legally make these bureaus delete all data on me and stop collecting data?

 

[daprez1963]

I must have done something in a way like you are wanting. I disputed all of my outstanding accounts listed with TransUnion and guess what, they deleted them all. Problem is, they also deleted all my "good-standing" ones too. In fact, they still have my old address and old employer from 5 years ago. It's like I don't even exist to them anymore.

As long as I don't apply for anything or anyone pull a report, my CR with TU is very short.

 

[Debt Guy]

No. There is no way to "make" the CRAs to do anything not prohibited by the FCRA. Download and read the FCRA for yourself.

No. It is not unconstitutional. I have actually read the constitution. Have you? Obviously not.

The CRAs don't "gather" data with the exception of public records. All non-public data is provided by the data furnisher (the bank) and such data is provided voluntarily and the bank actually spends money to give the data to the CRA.

CRAs do not exist for your benefit. They exist for the benefit of lenders. That is who pays for it and who uses it.

If you don't want to have a credit profile, then stop using credit. Eventually, you will become invisible.

Just curious what has put this bug up your butt? Not paying your bills on time and that history is coming home to roost and you think it is all so unfair. Right?

If you were a victim of identity theft, then I apologize for being snotty. I'll help you deal with that issue. Otherwise, stop being a child and live with your past.

 

[daprez1963]

Sorry Debt Guy, but I disagree. CRA give our personal info to people other than ones who have a need. I have seen my CR pulled by cell phone companies and lending institutions seeking to check my credit before offering "deals". These "pre-approved" offers are unwanted and an invasion in my personal file. A credit portfolio should be an option. If you want credit, then have one. If you don't, it should not exist.

"No. It is not unconstitutional. I have actually read the constitution. Have you? Obviously not."

I wasn't aware that our fore-fathers had CRA back when the Constitution was signed...

oh, BTW, I believe (maybe I read it wrong, explain) this sentence has two negatives making it improper use of English. Just a quick point-out. "There is no way to "make" the CRAs to do anything not prohibited by the FCRA."

 

[JustAPal00]

Sorry Debt Guy, but I disagree. CRA give our personal info to people other than ones who have a need. I have seen my CR pulled by cell phone companies and lending institutions seeking to check my credit before offering "deals". These "pre-approved" offers are unwanted and an invasion in my personal file. A credit portfolio should be an option. If you want credit, then have one. If you don't, it should not exist.

The only personal information on your credit report, is your credit history! If you don't want a credit history, then pay cash and pay on time!

"No. It is not unconstitutional. I have actually read the constitution. Have you? Obviously not."

I wasn't aware that our fore-fathers had CRA back when the Constitution was signed...

You proved his point! Since the constitution doesn't address it, it can't be unconstitutional!

oh, BTW, I believe (maybe I read it wrong, explain) this sentence has two negatives making it improper use of English. Just a quick point-out. "There is no way to "make" the CRAs to do anything not prohibited by the FCRA."

I think his English is fine! You on the other hand should capitalize the the first word in a sentence!

 

[moburkes]

Justa - I agree with all of your points.

daprez: The sentence was written properly. It means that you cannot force them to do something that is not written into the law. Since most laws tell you what you cannot do, and the FCRA does NOT prohibit, then they have a choice as to whether or not they are going to do something.

 

[daprez1963]

The only personal information on your credit report, is your credit history! If you don't want a credit history, then pay cash and pay on time!

You proved his point! Since the constitution doesn't address it, it can't be unconstitutional!

I think his English is fine! You on the other hand should capitalize the the first word in a sentence!

Doesn't the new law allowing people to FREEZE their reports (least in Florida, you can), not allowing anyone access to your report, give what he is basically seeking?

I see your point on the constitutional thing.

However, I don't agree with your "his English is fine". If you read it, he is essentially saying that they will do prohibited things...."no way to make the CRAs to do anything not prohibited by the FCRA". I believe it should have said "they can't be made to do anything prohibited by the FCRA. Maybe I am being too critical like others here. I just thought it was not properly worded.

 

[moburkes]

Doesn't the new law allowing people to FREEZE their reports (least in Florida, you can), not allowing anyone access to your report, give what he is basically seeking?

I see your point on the constitutional thing.

However, I don't agree with your "his English is fine". If you read it, he is essentially saying that they will do prohibited things...."no way to make the CRAs to do anything not prohibited by the FCRA". I believe it should have said "they can't be made to do anything prohibited by the FCRA. Maybe I am being too critical like others here. I just thought it was not properly worded.

Read how you rephrased it. Your statement is illegal - as if they have a CHOICE about doing something that is prohibited. They don't have that choice. If it is prohibited, and they do it anyway, it is illegal.

 

[daprez1963]

Justa - I agree with all of your points.

daprez: The sentence was written properly. It means that you cannot force them to do something that is not written into the law. Since most laws tell you what you cannot do, and the FCRA does NOT prohibit, then they have a choice as to whether or not they are going to do something.

okay, now i see the point. sorry, I was wrong.

 

[daprez1963]

Now, getting back to the OP's question. Doesn't the FREEZING rule help people who don't want their credit report pulled by others?

 

[moburkes]

http://www.privacy.ca.gov/sheets/cis10securityfreeze.htm

That is information for CA, but it appears to apply to all 50 states.

 

[daprez1963]

http://www.privacy.ca.gov/sheets/cis10securityfreeze.htm

That is information for CA, but it appears to apply to all 50 states.

updated July 18 2006.

As of that date, 25 states have enacted legislation that either already grants or will soon give all or some consumers the right to prevent identity theft by placing a security freeze on their credit reports. Twenty (20) states have enacted laws that already or will give all their residents the right to a security freeze: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Wisconsin. An additional 5 states currently provide this option only to ID theft victims -- Hawaii, Kansas, South Dakota, Texas and Washington State (WA victims definition includes consumers who've received a security breach notice.)

 

[dcatz]

Originally Posted by daprez1963
Doesn't the FREEZING rule help people who don't want their credit report pulled by others?

The “freeze laws” assist the OP to a very minimal degree and not at all in the manner that he hopes. There is no legal right to prevent the collection of data and no right in those laws to compel its deletion. As you are both from the same state, it might help to understand the purpose of the laws. moburkes’ link is a useful reference point, and excerpts from your own statute reflect considerable remaining latitude for disclosure.

(9) A third party requesting access to a consumer report on which a security freeze is in effect in connection with an application for credit or other permissible use may treat the application as incomplete if the consumer has not authorized a temporary lifting of the security freeze for the period of time during which the request is made.

(12) The provisions of this section do not applyto the use of a consumer report by the following persons or for the following reasons:
(a) A person to whom the consumer owes a financial 124
obligation or a subsidiary, affiliate, or agent of the person, or an assignee of a financial obligation owed by the consumer to the person, or a prospective assignee of a financial obligation owed by the consumer to the person in conjunction with the proposed purchase of the financial obligation, with which the consumer has or had prior to assignment an account or contract, including a deposit account, or to whom the consumer issued a negotiable instrument, for the purposes of reviewing the account or collecting the financial obligation owed for the account, contract, or negotiable instrument. For purposes of this paragraph, "reviewing the account" includes activities related to account maintenance, monitoring, credit line increases, and account upgrades and enhancements.
(b) A subsidiary, affiliate, agent, assignee, or prospective assignee of a person to whom access has been granted under this section for purposes of facilitating the extension of credit or other permissible use.
(c) A state agency acting within its lawful investigative or regulatory authority.
(d) A state or local law enforcement agency acting to 144
investigate a crime or conducting a criminal background check.
(e) Any person administering a credit file monitoring subscription service to which the consumer has subscribed. (f) Any person for the purpose of providing a consumer with a copy of the consumer report upon the consumer's request. (g) Pursuant to a court order lawfully entered.
(h) The use of credit information for the purposes of prescreening as provided for by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.
(i) Any insurance company for use in setting or adjusting a rate, adjusting a claim, or underwriting for insurance purposes.
(j) A consumer reporting agency's database or file which consists entirely of information concerning, and is used solely for, one or more of the following:
1. Criminal record information.
2. Personal loss history information.
3. Fraud prevention or detection.
4. Tenant screening.
5. Employment screening.

15) The provisions of this section do not apply to the following entities:
(a) A check services company, which issues authorizations for the purpose of approving or processing negotiable instruments, electronic funds transfers, or similar methods of payment.
(b) A deposit account information service company, which issues reports regarding account closures due to fraud, substantial overdrafts, automatic teller machine abuse, or similar negative information regarding a consumer to inquiring banks or other financial institutions for use only in reviewing a consumer request for a deposit account at the inquiring bank or financial institution, as defined in s. 655.005(1)(g) or (h), or in federal law.
(c) A consumer reporting agency that acts only as a reseller of credit information by assembling and merging information contained in the database of another consumer reporting agency or multiple consumer reporting agencies and does not maintain a permanent database of credit information from which new consumer reports are produced. However, a consumer reporting agency shall honor any security freeze placed, removed, or temporary lifted on a consumer report by another consumer reporting agency.
(d) A fraud prevention services company issuing reports to prevent or investigate fraud.

(e) A security freeze does not apply to a person or entity, or its affiliates, or collection agencies acting on behalf of the person or entity, with which you have an existing account, that requests information in your consumer report for the purposes of reviewing or collecting the account. Reviewing the account includes activities related to account maintenance, monitoring, credit line increases, and account upgrades and enhancements.

TransUnion has already extended the right to freeze to all states, even those that have not enacted laws. Experian will do the same effective 11/1/07. Only Equifax has yet to make an announcement.

 

[Debt Guy]

I have seen my CR pulled by cell phone companies and lending institutions seeking to check my credit before offering "deals".


Actually, I don't think that statement is accurate. Any creditor looking at your report must have a permissible purpose as defined by the FCRA. If you apply for credit, a part of the application is fine print giving the creditor permission to look at your credit history. I am 99.9% sure that is what you are seeing as a "hard inquiry" on your report. If not, the creditor is in violation of the FCRA and you can and should should sue their butt off.

Generally, creditors who wish to extend "deals" (for example credit card companies who send 'pre-approved' offers) do not see your credit report. They have a marketing agreement with the CRA where they give the CRA a set of parameters and receive only "above the line" data (name and address, phone number, etc.) A typical set of parameters would be something like "give me a list of consumers living in zip code 12345 that have at least two credit cards with pay status not worse than R-2 and a credit score above 625 but lower than 725". The CRA will then scan their database for those parameters and prepare a list. if you don't qualify to the parameters, the creditor never even knows your name let alone your credit history.

The only consumers who would be deleted from the complied list are those who have "opt-ed out". Opt out is the term for telling the CRA that you do not wish to receive pre-approved offers.

The point here is that the creditor never actually sees your credit history and does not have a permissible purpose to do so until you sign and return that application.


These "pre-approved" offers are unwanted and an invasion in my personal file.


Then, opt-out. Just call the CRA and tell them. At worst, they might asky you to put the request in writing, but my guess is that they won't even require that.

A credit portfolio should be an option. If you want credit, then have one. If you don't, it should not exist.

As I said in my original post, the credit reporting system does not exist to help you. It exists to help lenders -- the people who pay for the system. Don't like it? Take it up with your congressweasel.







PS -- I probably awkwardly worded that sentence that started so much debate over usage of language. Sometimes a drive for precision obscures clarity. Perhaps a better statement would be: You cannot make a CRA do anything provided they have not violated the FCRA and the CRAs refusal to make your credit file disappear is not one of those things that is prohibited. However, in my defense, I did preface that awkward sentence with the one word conclusion -- "no".[/INDENT]

 

[moburkes]

Your sentence was fine. daprez1963 and gulfbreeze are the same person and trying to pull the same crap.