Criminal behavior by banks.The same banks that scammed people in the housing bubble. The same banks that helped affiliated vendors scam the elderly with fake bills they processed electronically against their accounts.
3
Quote: 'With so much at stake, borrowers are willing to do almost anything — even pay debts...' How awful for them to bear the heavy burden of accountability.
2
This NYT article and the majority of the comments and recommends here seem to imply some entitlement of people to run up huge debts, acquire protected assets, burn the rest of the money and then file some papers that say, I will not pay back the money that I was loaned, let alone the interest that I agreed to pay. Too bad for those people who trusted me. And that this information should be withheld from anyone who might consider trusting me currently or in the future.
3
Bankruptcy is road that is not easily travelled. For you to suggest that it is or that almost all of those that file bankruptcy are deadbeats remind me of those that sought debtor prisons for those who couldn't pay their debts.
Do you feel the same about banks and companies that can't pay their debts during the Great Recession? If so Mr. Dimon from JPM, Mr. Blankfein from Goldman Sachs, Mr. Lewis former CEO and Chairman of B of A should all be in jail since they were insolvent when TARP was implemented.
Do you feel the same about banks and companies that can't pay their debts during the Great Recession? If so Mr. Dimon from JPM, Mr. Blankfein from Goldman Sachs, Mr. Lewis former CEO and Chairman of B of A should all be in jail since they were insolvent when TARP was implemented.
6
Judgmental comments about people skipping out on debts betray ignorance. Many people pay off their debts via Chapter 13. It's not easy and it's not frivolous. My husband and I went through five years of ch. 13 for medical debts, with every extra penny we had getting sent to the trustee to distribute to creditors. We paid so much the trustee went on to pay off Sallie Mae loans, and ended up sending us a little extra back. I worked hard before and after, and the reason we had to pursue this is because the banks don't want to be reasonable, they just want to sue and get what they can. Using ch. 13 we paid them back fairly and are now putting our life together, very slowly and carefully.
7
Many people go into debt because they have huge medical bills The days of easy bankruptcy are gone. Except for corporations, who get a free pass on everything.
3
I went through a personal Chapter 11 in 2008, re=org plan approved 2009. It took five years to get the banks to stop reporting my debts as defaults/debts owed to the credit bureaus. 3 banks refused my court ordered payments on my properties, even though it was they breaking the law by refusing to accept my payments.
Even after lawsuits to the get the banks to accept the money they were supposed to accept under the bankruptcy plan, they still don'tr eport my on- time payments now, which also has a negative affect on my credit.
One commentator mentioned that she couldn't believe that banks could so brazenly break the bankruptcy laws with such impunity, and how bad it is that they are now above the law. My first BK attorney (I had to reopen my BK with a new lawyer to sue the banks to get them to accept my payments) said in the old days if a bank violated bankruptcy law, a letter from the attorney would usually straighten them out because BK judges would otherwise sanction them. As we see here, the banks no longer fear the Courts.
With the notable exception of Judge Drive, in this case, and Judge Elizabeth Megner in Louisiana, who has been extremely aggressive against Wells Fargo mortage abuses, it appears the BK bench has been absolutely somnolent when it comes to bank abuses.
When I reopened my bk case, I had to go before a new judge. Despite the evidence of all the returned payments etc., she treated me as the criminal, rather than the banks.This is America now.
Even after lawsuits to the get the banks to accept the money they were supposed to accept under the bankruptcy plan, they still don'tr eport my on- time payments now, which also has a negative affect on my credit.
One commentator mentioned that she couldn't believe that banks could so brazenly break the bankruptcy laws with such impunity, and how bad it is that they are now above the law. My first BK attorney (I had to reopen my BK with a new lawyer to sue the banks to get them to accept my payments) said in the old days if a bank violated bankruptcy law, a letter from the attorney would usually straighten them out because BK judges would otherwise sanction them. As we see here, the banks no longer fear the Courts.
With the notable exception of Judge Drive, in this case, and Judge Elizabeth Megner in Louisiana, who has been extremely aggressive against Wells Fargo mortage abuses, it appears the BK bench has been absolutely somnolent when it comes to bank abuses.
When I reopened my bk case, I had to go before a new judge. Despite the evidence of all the returned payments etc., she treated me as the criminal, rather than the banks.This is America now.
4
As someone with good credit, through hard work and luck, I am somewhat taken aback that a personal bankruptcy erases a bad credit history and puts the bankrupt on a par with people who have maintained good credit. Is that how it works?
1
I didn't get the impression that BK implied in the long run that a persons' bad credit wasn't made known. This article highlights that debts owed had gone to a different status such as a charge off and that was not the case. And great that thus far in life you've had a stellar account of being credit worthy, but my advise to you: keep on living.
4
It's a shame because a few cases in which the bankruptcy court dismissed such debts would cause the banks to snap into line so quickly...
2
Look at it this way, please; once you file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and it is finalized,
"you cannot file, again for 10 years"! This should give you a, second chance to start again and rebuild your credit score! But, what happens is, "you are denied a chance to get another credit card', etc., due to you having filed bankruptcy, previously! Credit card issuers know you cannot file again, for many years so, "why do they not let you have that second chance'?
"you cannot file, again for 10 years"! This should give you a, second chance to start again and rebuild your credit score! But, what happens is, "you are denied a chance to get another credit card', etc., due to you having filed bankruptcy, previously! Credit card issuers know you cannot file again, for many years so, "why do they not let you have that second chance'?
2
Because many of them feel that if you were irresponsible enough to have to file for bankruptcy once, the bankruptcy may not be repeated but the irresponsibility will remain.
I guess I'm too old school, but I believe that one should not take on more debt than one can repay, and once a debt is taken on one has a moral obligation, if not a legal one, to repay the lender.
I guess I'm too old school, but I believe that one should not take on more debt than one can repay, and once a debt is taken on one has a moral obligation, if not a legal one, to repay the lender.
2
Oddly, they all seem more than willing to sucker you into CC debt again. A family member did personal bankruptcy and gets nonstop credit card offers, which will no doubt lead down the same path.
1
How about irresponsible enough to require emergency surgery for an aneurysm or cancer? How about irresponsible enough to require using your cards for groceries and the light bill when your company lays you off for no better reason than they want increased profits? The majority of people pursuing bankruptcy don't like doing it and don't do it lightly. 40% of bankruptcies in January of this year were ch. 13, which means people arranging to pay their debts over three-five years. Educate yourself before judging your neighbor.
3
"In a statement, a spokesman for Citigroup said the bank “takes this issue very seriously,” ". One of the tortures in Hell is having to read all of the corporate boilerplate written by personnel and legal departments.
11
Banks got a trillion dollar TARP, did not get prosecuted for their crimes in the mortgage meltdown.
Consumers/workers got destroyed. Had their interest rates run up towards 30% just prior to Dodd Frank start, and locked in until they collapsed under the weight of the debt, then scarlet lettered with destroyed credit reports, all while there was no employment that paid the cost of living.
Banks need to step up and take some responsibility for the shambles in which they have left the economy.
It's nice that they are promising to not commit further fraud and extortion on credit reports, but that's really not enough compared to the devastation they have wrought on the financial well being of millions of us.
Consumers/workers got destroyed. Had their interest rates run up towards 30% just prior to Dodd Frank start, and locked in until they collapsed under the weight of the debt, then scarlet lettered with destroyed credit reports, all while there was no employment that paid the cost of living.
Banks need to step up and take some responsibility for the shambles in which they have left the economy.
It's nice that they are promising to not commit further fraud and extortion on credit reports, but that's really not enough compared to the devastation they have wrought on the financial well being of millions of us.
14
Isn't it rich that companies like Equifax, Transunion and Experian own our personal financial data!? Isn't it ironic that we have to pay them to access our own data!? Isn't it crazy that they sell our data for profit to 3rd parties!? And then on top of all of that, they drag their feet when it comes to assuring that our data is accurate, up-to-date, and free of the very frauds the big banks have been perpetrating on us, such as outlined in this NYT article. The USA has become of the banks, by the banks and for the banks.
8
Many of the same issues in health care records.
The way things are going, they will do the same thing one day with our personal health data.
3
George Orwell was right!
1
Do the executives of these institutions have, on their credit record, the nefarious felonies that they have plead guilty to, and were absolved of?
8
At first reading of this I thought, "Well, good, it's about time." After some reflection, however, I regained my senses and realized there must be some trick here. Surely those sleazy banks have in mind equally scurrilous ways to screw working people. Hmmm . . . what will those be?
7
Credit reports accessed and and used by potential employers is an invasive practice and should be made illegal. What next cell phone logs and GPS tracking data. What has happened to privacy in this country and relevance.
9
It is illegal in six states, Oregon being one of them.
1
As a bankruptcy attorney, I'm somewhat surprised that prospective creditors factor in whether a debt has been discharged, i.e., beyond considering that the debt was incurred and unpaid. Understand that a bankruptcy discharge order merely says, "This debtor is granted a discharge of all debts that are dischargeable." In other words the discharge is only as good as the Debtor's listing of debts and proof of service on all creditors.d I've always advised clients to keep a copy of their papers to be able to subsequently prove particular debts were listed, the underlying creditors served and, thus, the debt is discharged. I like the fact that creditors will acknowledge on a credit report that, effectively, they were served and listed and thus discharged. Notwithstanding, such seems to be redundant and, possibly, opens cans of worm regarding who confirms discharge and who does not.
2
I wonder if we will see any real consequences for these actions.
I doubt it since the DOJ seems to be only interested in hounding reporters and whistle blowers who expose graft, corruption and illegal wiretapping by the Federal government!
I doubt it since the DOJ seems to be only interested in hounding reporters and whistle blowers who expose graft, corruption and illegal wiretapping by the Federal government!
6
Gretchen Morgenson wrote this morning on how the Bank of America may be dodging its obligations under its settlement with the DOJ, by offering forgiveness of a second mortgage which it cannot collect anyway after a bankruptcy discharge. This may not be so bad! It can really help a borrower, because it gives clear title to the borrower's house, which many people successfully keep after bankruptcy. To do that, you have to pay off the mortgages, so forgiveness is a big benefit, unless you already lost the house to foreclosure. The more usual misconduct is for the bank to refuse to report the post-bankruptcy borrower's on time payments on the second mortgage unless the borrower formally reaffirms the debt -- restoring the bank's ability to sue & garnish! Without the positive credit reporting, the credit score goes down, reducing the borrower's chance of getting a job, etc. There is no persuasive legal reason for this but their collectors assert several. The real reason? Trying to extort reaffirmation. Reaffirmation is required to be voluntary by the Bankruptcy Code but once bankruptcy lawyers learn that reaffirmation is the only way to get the payments reported -- sometimes the only way to get statements mailed or access to an online account -- extortion is the result. But -- is Bank of America offering principal reductions yet on first mortgages? And why, in 2015, is this still a question without an answer??
3
This is yet another good reason to nationalize these large banks that create their own rules. They don't do much good, but they sure do a lot of harm.
3
This is happening with paid off Sallie Mae loans as well, being sold inappropriately and then pursued for collection by Navient.
27 comments so far, yet no dissent or support of big banks.
4
That's because I just saw the article.
Real change only happens in the courtroom, apparently.
2
That's why corporations and banks always want to divest everyday Americans of their right to bring them into court. You can't bribe or lobby a jury, nor can you take a jury on a golf juncket or contribute to their campaigns.
2
Your Bankruptcy = Moral Failure (even if medical)
Corporate Bankruptcy = Good Business (sorry pensioners)
Corporate Bankruptcy = Good Business (sorry pensioners)
5
First they were too big to fail; now they are too big to follow the law. Mind you that these are the laws of the country they hit up fot a billions in loans for which they themselves had abysmal credit ratings. The sheer audacity of these thugs thumbing their noses at the laws of the US and the judgments of the federal bankruptcy courts is appalling. The hypocrisy of their lame defenses and excuses, though, is simply business as usual.
4
Banks have become too big to JAIL.
1
An underlying story, though reported many times, is how the third and fourth parties that purchase bank debt remain somehow beyond the reach of regulators. The regulators when they go after the "big banks" should also include the third and fourth parties that cooperate with the big banks. These parties, that are nothing more than collection agencies, that seem to act with near impunity. After my divorce I cancelled our joint accounts. Yet my ex ran up debts, these parties harassed me thinking I would pay her debts. These collection agencies hounded anyone with my last name asking for payment. Calling them bottom feeders would be insulting to the bottom feeders. Thankfully my own credit rating was not affected.
7
How nice of these shameless banks not to hold a credit rating hostage until a discharged or paid debt is paid or repaid. How nice of these banks not to defeat the purposes of the bankruptcy discharge by excepting debts to them from it. This is an invidious practice. In a petition for bankruptcy protection the bankrupt lists all of his debts and creditors can appear and challenge. If a debt is discharged it is no longer a debt and listing that discharged debt on a credit report should be deemed to be an act of contempt of court which can result in daily fines until the slander to the bankrupt’s credit is removed.
While it is unlikely that a Congress owned by the banking industry going to enact a statute, in the event that 2017 may change things we need a Slander of Credit Act giving a victim a cause of action for damages and attorney’s fees with damages being calculated on the number of days that the slander persists, with jurisdiction over banks, loan companies, collection agencies and credit rating services. The statute should make this practice of reviving dead debts to be a misdemeanor.
The use of credit reports should be limited to those extending credit where the issue is ability to repay money or make future payments. Credit reports are not private investigators. Please show your Domestic Passport, your criminal record and your credit report at he front desk and you will be seated soon. We are not there yet maybe a bar code in the wrist will come first.
While it is unlikely that a Congress owned by the banking industry going to enact a statute, in the event that 2017 may change things we need a Slander of Credit Act giving a victim a cause of action for damages and attorney’s fees with damages being calculated on the number of days that the slander persists, with jurisdiction over banks, loan companies, collection agencies and credit rating services. The statute should make this practice of reviving dead debts to be a misdemeanor.
The use of credit reports should be limited to those extending credit where the issue is ability to repay money or make future payments. Credit reports are not private investigators. Please show your Domestic Passport, your criminal record and your credit report at he front desk and you will be seated soon. We are not there yet maybe a bar code in the wrist will come first.
5
Hmmmmm....so regulation and oversight hinder good capitalist practices? Please....what this article seems to imply is a sense of greed as a business model, and an outright flagrant violation of the law. If the banks were held to the Citizen's United standard of citizenship, perhaps they could stand trial, and perhaps go to prison, if convicted? Fat chance.
5
Unless corporate leaders like Jamie Dimond are prosecuted and sent to jail these behaviors of the U.S. mega-banks will never change.
6
After a bankruptcy, all debts except government debts, are supposed to be voided, but even if they were the bankruptcy itself stays on your credit report for seven years, so clearing her credit card debts would not actually help Ms Torres.
1
I think that they should simply add a new category, 'Debt discharged due to bankruptcy". That would be completely accurate, note that the debt is no longer collectable, and yet inform future potential lenders of the full situation.
3
This is MRS. I work with bankruptcies and know that if a debt is discharged, a creditor cannot pursue any residual balance unless they have been granted relief from the automatic stay. The debt must be written off if no stay has been granted or if the debtor did not reaffirm the debt during the bankruptcy proceeding. This harkens back to the Sears Roebuck & Co. days when they would not cease pursuit of debt that was discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcies. Why some creditors think they are so large they can circumvent the law is beyond me. Bankruptcy proceedings follow a wrote path and are very clear-cut. Discharged debt must be removed from a creditor's portfolio and adverse entries to credit reports must be expunged BY COURT ORDER. There is still a contingent that believes that bankruptcy is shameful and disgraceful, but the attitude toward it is different today. There are protections for people to restart their lives. Let no creditor violate those protections.
4
Why should a validly incurred debt that is discharged through bankruptcy not be reported? The debt shouldn't be subject to collection and its payoff should have no impact on FICO scores. The overwhelming impact of bankruptcy is already in the credit score so having a debt discharged has zero impact on FICO score. While I'm not sure employers except those that a dealing with financials should be using credit scores in hiring decision, a bank or company extending credit should certainly have a complete financial picture of the person requesting credit including debts discharged through bankruptcy as well as the fact the person did file bankruptcy.
5
Bank of America and JPMorgan are criminal organizations, sanctioned by and encouraged by government legal and financial protection. The judiciary, executive and legislative branches of government have explicitly stated, repeatedly, that the employees and executives at the major banks are immune to prosecution for any crimes they commit. They cannot even be forced to admit that they have broken any laws. In such a world, further rampant criminality is incentivized, needless to say.
3
Now all we need is to break both up into tiny little pieces. Their theft is bigger than all of ours together.
2
Not sure how this is supposed to work, but isn't it commonsensical that the credit bureaus have to accept valid data from both the creditor and the consumer? The bureaus, one supposes, make a good living from providing ACCURATE information. Bankruptcies are PUBLIC record, why would it be so hard for a credit bureau to automatically know which debts are discharged based on a court ordered bankruptcy? There at least two sources of this data, the court filing itself, and the preexisting credit records on file at the bureau. I see this whole convoluted story as unnecessary unless the bureaus are in implicit collusion with the creditors, as soon as the bankruptcy is ordered, it should be very clear for the most part which debts are no longer valid to report as ongoing.
2
Government is the problem, we let them get away with all by sending our kids to wars for criminals who want to make more money. It is obvious that congress is those guys employees and get paid for signing up big contracts. You see, in Washington, when one congressman talks against these criminals; they make him or her richer. Insurance companies, banks, big factories. Why do anyone have to pay 25 per cent interest in credit card loan? We the constituents are solemnly to be blamed for not taking actions. Those criminals made our government to be our Dictators instead of working for us. florida
3
"We break federal law? So, what? Sue me." This has been the attitude of "Too Big to Fail" banks for years. Their attitude has been arrogant, abusive and, as was pointed out, an almost incomprehensible greed.
What was not addressed, are the gutless Federal Bankruptcy Judges. Put the CEO of any of these banks in jail for Contempt of Court, and this would end in about twenty four hours.
What was not addressed, are the gutless Federal Bankruptcy Judges. Put the CEO of any of these banks in jail for Contempt of Court, and this would end in about twenty four hours.
2
Make student loan debt dischargeable in bankruptcy. No one is more saddled with lousy credit than those unable to keep up with or repay enormous student loan debt, which goes on for decades.
1
There are also statutes of limitation as to how long a debt can be collected through court action, These vary by state but are usually 4 years. Sometimes 2 years.
1
I feel that the original purpose for bankruptcy was to allow a person or entity another chance after they were struck by something catestrophic that they had no control over. Something like a illness or a job loss. I think you will find that a vast majority of people filing bankruptcy is because they overextended themselves which they had control over. Lenders should be able to find that out and make the informed decision not to lend to them again.
3
These banks are the very institutions that blew up the economy. They engaged in financial practices so risky that about 2.5 trillion dollars was knocked out of the economy. They preyed on lower income people by actively seeking them out loaning them money they couldn't pay back. They knowingly sold the bad debt to third party investors claiming it was triple A rated. All this time, the people doing the dirty deeds made fortunes in commissions from selling the poison. Then what happened?
The taxpayer bailed them out. Hundreds of billions flowed into their coffers to shore up their balance sheets. The the fed has provided them with trillions in interest free money they have used to buy US treasuries, giving them a risk free return used to bolster profits. No one went to jail.
Then what happened. The very people that suffered the most from their evil enterprise and had to file for chapter 7. Those poor souls are still being pursued by the banks in violation of federal law. They are being extorted to extract even more tribute.
Now substitute the words "organized crime syndicate" for "banks" and see if the meaning of my comment changes at all. It doesn't.
The taxpayer bailed them out. Hundreds of billions flowed into their coffers to shore up their balance sheets. The the fed has provided them with trillions in interest free money they have used to buy US treasuries, giving them a risk free return used to bolster profits. No one went to jail.
Then what happened. The very people that suffered the most from their evil enterprise and had to file for chapter 7. Those poor souls are still being pursued by the banks in violation of federal law. They are being extorted to extract even more tribute.
Now substitute the words "organized crime syndicate" for "banks" and see if the meaning of my comment changes at all. It doesn't.
3
So who's going to trace all of these zombie debts that were sold to LLC's? There's a huge industry out there full of law firms whose only income is chasing these debts. The worst part of it is that they cannot produce the original billing data that caused the debt. There's just some partial legal paper trail. The whole premise of these collections is fear and ignorance. Until these collectors are required to show the original billing(s) and proof of claim with the request for payment, this legalized robbery will continue.
1
Some things I am considering before opening any credit card, loan or any type of financial relationship:
1. The bigger the bank the larger the problems of non compliance with credit reporting and basic credit policies such as underwriting.
2. Bigger banks are more likely to the target of hackers as they have more accounts
3. Smaller institutions look at the truth (e.g. the credit union considering the bankruptcy docs of the prospective employee); bigger banks find themselves in court demonstrating they are "the decider" of the definition of the word "the".
1. The bigger the bank the larger the problems of non compliance with credit reporting and basic credit policies such as underwriting.
2. Bigger banks are more likely to the target of hackers as they have more accounts
3. Smaller institutions look at the truth (e.g. the credit union considering the bankruptcy docs of the prospective employee); bigger banks find themselves in court demonstrating they are "the decider" of the definition of the word "the".
1
As someone who has carefully managed his credit and obligations (as the vast majority of Americans have; btw ~ 1/3 of Americans homeowners including 30% of young people hold no mortgage debt), I do not understand why my credit card, mortgage and car interest rates should be higher because lenders cannot determine who is a good and bad credit by cleanings credit records of less responsible borrowers. It's not the banks who get hurt by sweeping practices like this, it is actually the good borrowers.
2
Obviously banks need to uphold the law fully, not just make an effort to look like they will.
But let's attack this problem at its core. Hold the credit reporting companies liable for the quality of the information that they sell. That would put the onus on the reporting companies to get good data from its data sources, and hold them responsible if bad information causes a person to lose a job opportunity. Too expensive? Not my problem. I didn't ask them to sell information about me concatenated with everyone else on the east coast who shares my name. If the business cannot afford accuracy, it isn't a valid business model.
Consumers are the only people who have no control over what actually goes onto a credit report. Not just debts discharged in bankruptcy, but also debts that have been paid but not processed correctly, debts that belong to others, debts that expired years ago...all of which gain the consumer the opportunity to dodge collection agencies and lose the ability to finance college.
But let's attack this problem at its core. Hold the credit reporting companies liable for the quality of the information that they sell. That would put the onus on the reporting companies to get good data from its data sources, and hold them responsible if bad information causes a person to lose a job opportunity. Too expensive? Not my problem. I didn't ask them to sell information about me concatenated with everyone else on the east coast who shares my name. If the business cannot afford accuracy, it isn't a valid business model.
Consumers are the only people who have no control over what actually goes onto a credit report. Not just debts discharged in bankruptcy, but also debts that have been paid but not processed correctly, debts that belong to others, debts that expired years ago...all of which gain the consumer the opportunity to dodge collection agencies and lose the ability to finance college.
7
Some more of our Pillars of Society, lowlifes, at work!
1
The Banksters, the true Money Changers At The Temple!
1
Our elected officials who receive substantial contributions from financial institutions are the root of the problem. On the face of things they pass legislation to seemingly correct abuses of the institutions but by the time the lobbyists are done fine tuning the details with exceptions, lengthy compliance windows and other weakening language the resulting laws have wonderful names but do little.
1
The Fair Credit Reporting Act - the law which regulates the collection of consumers' data - was written in 1970. Time for a MAJOR re-write. Why the banks and the 3 Credit Agencies are allowed to collect all this data on people in the first place is beyond me.
Perhaps Ms. Bernadette Gatling should have curbed her spending, BEFORE she got into such financial straits. We're not quite sure what "Hospital Administrator," really means; it could be anything from the chief to a billing clerk. Still, if she was experiencing financial difficulties, her very first move might have been to cut-up/destroy all but the lowest limit card that she currently had, relearn ow to use mostly cash and begin a plan to pay-down her debt. That is a popular course for 'responsible' people.
A general ability to handle one's personal financial affairs often IS a good indicator of how well a candidate may perform, once on the job and heck yes, employers should be considering these data when making hiring decisions. One step father... why was Ms. Bernadette Gatling in the job market in the first place? Many possibilities exist, some benign and some of possible concern to a potential new employer. Perhaps these things should be openly discussed during interviews. At the least, an employer is not executing due diligence if they do not check some of these things before making an offer of employment.
Sadly, the current agreement/ruling allows folks like Bernadette Gatling to bury some perfectly legitimate parts of their personal history and an employer should be checking. At the end of the day, WHY did Bernadette Gatling not pay her bills - or even more appropriately, why did Bernadette Gatling make those purchases in the first place? What did she buy?
A general ability to handle one's personal financial affairs often IS a good indicator of how well a candidate may perform, once on the job and heck yes, employers should be considering these data when making hiring decisions. One step father... why was Ms. Bernadette Gatling in the job market in the first place? Many possibilities exist, some benign and some of possible concern to a potential new employer. Perhaps these things should be openly discussed during interviews. At the least, an employer is not executing due diligence if they do not check some of these things before making an offer of employment.
Sadly, the current agreement/ruling allows folks like Bernadette Gatling to bury some perfectly legitimate parts of their personal history and an employer should be checking. At the end of the day, WHY did Bernadette Gatling not pay her bills - or even more appropriately, why did Bernadette Gatling make those purchases in the first place? What did she buy?
3
Why not short sales as well? The banks get a write off and people get their credit ruined. I went through a horrible process with Chase that they dragged out for months adding more debt to the my account. I will never use them again and I do not trust banks. We bailed them out and they left us all hanging.
3
Given that the bankruptcy will remain on the credit bureaus this is likely to have little effect in terms of people being able to obtain new credit. As for the use of credit reports in employment decisions, that is a whole different kettle of fish.
1
If employers are unlikely to hire because a credit report shows an unpaid debt, won't they be just as unlikely to hire because a credit report shows a bankruptcy? Wipe off all the discharged debts but the report of the bankruptcy is still there and obviously, that means there had been unpaid debt.
I'm not saying that banks and credit reporting companies shouldn't follow the law, but even if they do, potential employers will still see information that indicates the same thing.
I'm not saying that banks and credit reporting companies shouldn't follow the law, but even if they do, potential employers will still see information that indicates the same thing.
4
I think there is a serious issue missed by this article.
Why are credit reports being used by employers to screen employees?
It would seem that the US has outrageously weak data protection laws.
I am told every time a person looks at my credit history here in Norway. They can only look when I apply for credit and give them permission to do so. This is what a credit score is for, it is not a commodity to be bought and sold to anyone.
Why is a credit history being made available to anyone? Should the 'free market' make available all of your private data? How far should you take this invasion of your privacy? With big data coming you had best wake up!
If you do not enact laws that prevent the sharing of your private information without your knowledge, you will find yourself constantly abused by big business in the future.
"Big Brother" may not be watching you, but Big Data is (and the NSA of course, and perhaps the FBI and Homeland Security).
Why are credit reports being used by employers to screen employees?
It would seem that the US has outrageously weak data protection laws.
I am told every time a person looks at my credit history here in Norway. They can only look when I apply for credit and give them permission to do so. This is what a credit score is for, it is not a commodity to be bought and sold to anyone.
Why is a credit history being made available to anyone? Should the 'free market' make available all of your private data? How far should you take this invasion of your privacy? With big data coming you had best wake up!
If you do not enact laws that prevent the sharing of your private information without your knowledge, you will find yourself constantly abused by big business in the future.
"Big Brother" may not be watching you, but Big Data is (and the NSA of course, and perhaps the FBI and Homeland Security).
4
Time to look into Public Banking where the citizens are the bank owners. New Zealand has a public banking system that works. In our country North Dakota has one working just fine.
We do not have to do business with the too big to fail banks. There are options in most communities to bank at credit unions. In ur area they offer a credit card options with a much lower interest cost than most of the big bank offers you get in the mail.
We do not have to do business with the too big to fail banks. There are options in most communities to bank at credit unions. In ur area they offer a credit card options with a much lower interest cost than most of the big bank offers you get in the mail.
1
Isn't that nice of banks...they have agreed to comply with the LAW! Our government is totally in the thrall of the banks. We gave them billions and their CEOs raked in a good portion of that yet they can ignore the law. They have already destroyed people's lives but they are able by breaking the law to make it impossible for people to even get jobs!
Banks use credit reports which they themselves practically write, (Credit rewriting agencies are NOT independant.) to charge consumers more. Credit reports have become nothing more that another tool of manipulation and control. Consider if you close down a credit card, your score falls if you open one it gets better. Companies can report "debts" without and support thus hitting your credit score. If you check your credit report as suggested, it can result in a lower credit score. Its ridiculous and its wrong.
Banks use credit reports which they themselves practically write, (Credit rewriting agencies are NOT independant.) to charge consumers more. Credit reports have become nothing more that another tool of manipulation and control. Consider if you close down a credit card, your score falls if you open one it gets better. Companies can report "debts" without and support thus hitting your credit score. If you check your credit report as suggested, it can result in a lower credit score. Its ridiculous and its wrong.
1
I wish the NYT would look into the cozy relationship between Reporting Agencies and lending institutions. There are SO many "gotchas" in the system that there is a clear appearance of conspiracy between them.
For instance, why should closing a credit card *hurt* one's credit? That's absurd. What if someone doesn't want to carry a credit card - why should that hurt their credit? Many other examples abound.
These Credit Reporting Agencies are a SCAM; they cause 10's of millions of consumers to have to pay higher interest rates due to reduced credit ratings that are cause by all the "gotchas" in the system. It's like we're slaves to this subjective system of arbitrary rules and outrageous usury.
For instance, why should closing a credit card *hurt* one's credit? That's absurd. What if someone doesn't want to carry a credit card - why should that hurt their credit? Many other examples abound.
These Credit Reporting Agencies are a SCAM; they cause 10's of millions of consumers to have to pay higher interest rates due to reduced credit ratings that are cause by all the "gotchas" in the system. It's like we're slaves to this subjective system of arbitrary rules and outrageous usury.
2
Businesses shouldn't be permitted to use this information for employment purposes unless it is directly relevant to the position.
1
The banks' actions have clearly been illegal, however where is evidence that they were penalized for their wrongdoings? Yet again, the banks get away free.
1
Credit worthiness as a condition for employment is discrimation against the poor.
I think Elizabeth Warren is too radical for my tastes. But if she's the only presidential candidate who is dead serious about stopping the use of credit checks for employment purposes, she has my vote.
I think Elizabeth Warren is too radical for my tastes. But if she's the only presidential candidate who is dead serious about stopping the use of credit checks for employment purposes, she has my vote.
Clearly, the regulations are still too lax. This shouldn't have to be be a civil, or voluntary, compliance deals.
Banks continue to act just the worst because regulations (where there are any) don't have teeth ... just gums. The regulators and trial lawyers are but gum biters.
Banks continue to act just the worst because regulations (where there are any) don't have teeth ... just gums. The regulators and trial lawyers are but gum biters.
1
It does not change the fact that these people do not pay their bills.
Over the long term, no business can afford to sell to people who do not pay their bills. If the credit reporting system becomes corrupted by government mandate, then businesses will simply find other ways to find who pays and who does not pay their bills. If that is not possible, then businesses will take other measures. For example, there are many businesses who will only take cash. If credit reporting becomes corrupted, I expect that many more businesses will institute this policy.
Over the long term, no business can afford to sell to people who do not pay their bills. If the credit reporting system becomes corrupted by government mandate, then businesses will simply find other ways to find who pays and who does not pay their bills. If that is not possible, then businesses will take other measures. For example, there are many businesses who will only take cash. If credit reporting becomes corrupted, I expect that many more businesses will institute this policy.
2
"If credit reporting becomes corrupted, I expect that many more businesses will institute this policy."
You get it's the banks doing the corruption. The debt had been legally discharged by a bankruptcy. That means it's no. longer. exists. By reporting it, that means the banks were themselves the corruptors.
You get it's the banks doing the corruption. The debt had been legally discharged by a bankruptcy. That means it's no. longer. exists. By reporting it, that means the banks were themselves the corruptors.
Given that a person has filed for bankruptcy means to me as a businessman that I am even more unlikely to get paid. If that fact is hidden from me, then I will simply not to extend credit at all, as not getting paid means that I will go out of business.
Filing for bankruptcy means that your old debts are discharged. It does not mean that anyone is required to extend credit to you in the future. Not paying your debts has consequences.
If credit records are systematically hidden by government mandate, then businesses will need to take steps to protect themselves, such as not trusting anyone.
Filing for bankruptcy means that your old debts are discharged. It does not mean that anyone is required to extend credit to you in the future. Not paying your debts has consequences.
If credit records are systematically hidden by government mandate, then businesses will need to take steps to protect themselves, such as not trusting anyone.
Pretty sad it's big news when a bank that's too big to fail actually decides to follow the law.
It was a great consolation, having lost years of savings right as we were having children when the recession hit, to know that at least we had our good names.
Now my credit is worth even less relative to others, and we still have no retirement (spent it to avoid bankruptcy and debt and welfare) or home, because we are paying off debt.
Reading this I wonder, should we just file bankruptcy and start saving for a home in this case? We rent because we used our savings to pay living expenses when unemployed.
Does saving get us anywhere or should I just find a way to discharge my debt?
I have a credit line. If I put my student loans on that, can I then declare bankruptcy, save up for 10 years, and then buy a house with the same interest rate I'd have had, had I not discharged the debt (and therefore not been able to save)?
I don't want to ruin my name or steal but I paid for college myself three times, and have worked the whole time.
I would like to know what I should do. With student loans and credit card debt (from medical and housing expenses mainly during the recession when I wasn't earning a full salary), I probably still owe a good $25k. It's hard to pay it off and I'm scrimping on retirement. I had a home but luckily sold it and that got us from 2007-2009. 2010-12 were a slog.
What am I gaining by paying off these debts? Virtue? My children can't go to college on my virtue.
Now my credit is worth even less relative to others, and we still have no retirement (spent it to avoid bankruptcy and debt and welfare) or home, because we are paying off debt.
Reading this I wonder, should we just file bankruptcy and start saving for a home in this case? We rent because we used our savings to pay living expenses when unemployed.
Does saving get us anywhere or should I just find a way to discharge my debt?
I have a credit line. If I put my student loans on that, can I then declare bankruptcy, save up for 10 years, and then buy a house with the same interest rate I'd have had, had I not discharged the debt (and therefore not been able to save)?
I don't want to ruin my name or steal but I paid for college myself three times, and have worked the whole time.
I would like to know what I should do. With student loans and credit card debt (from medical and housing expenses mainly during the recession when I wasn't earning a full salary), I probably still owe a good $25k. It's hard to pay it off and I'm scrimping on retirement. I had a home but luckily sold it and that got us from 2007-2009. 2010-12 were a slog.
What am I gaining by paying off these debts? Virtue? My children can't go to college on my virtue.
Why do we need to have credit cards and debt history in order to have a good credit score.?
The whole thing is a scam.
The whole thing is a scam.
2
Because that's what a credit score is based on… how you handle credit. How do you expect to have a credit score if you don't use credit? That's like expecting a rained-out baseball game to have a final score. If you're not participating in what the score is based upon, you can't expect to have a score.
She doesn't owe the money because she declared bankruptcy.
The fact she declared bankruptcy should be in her credit report because by declaring bankruptcy she has proven she doesn't pay back her debts.
Just because she no longer owes that money isn't a reason not to say at one time she did and she never paid it back.
I can't believe reporting that is against the law..
The fact she declared bankruptcy should be in her credit report because by declaring bankruptcy she has proven she doesn't pay back her debts.
Just because she no longer owes that money isn't a reason not to say at one time she did and she never paid it back.
I can't believe reporting that is against the law..
3
It will be on her credit report for 10 years. You're confusing the public record that is the bankruptcy with the listing of individual debts that were part of it.
How nice- Bank of America actually has to follow the law. For once.
Two things. First, I understood this to be the law already. Surprise, surprise, surprise (in my best Gomer Pyle USMC voice) that the banks were doing what the banks these last few dozen years do. Second, why the heck are employers even allowed to access credit records? It's one thing if the position is one that handles the books. but for most all jobs, I can't see any good reason for it and I tend to think it should not be legal to make any hiring decision based on a person's credit history where that history is not directly relevant to the job.
1
This article is completely unclear. My understanding is that bankruptcies stay on credit reports for 7 years. So is the issue that the banks are reporting discharged debts as still owed and therefore trying to collect when they shouldn't be? Ok, that shouldn't be happening so that's great. But changing that will have no impact on these people who can't get jobs. A bankruptcy is as bad (or worse?) than owing money on a credit card. What am I missing?
Chapter 7 bankruptcy stays on credit reports for 10 years. The banks have been reporting both the bankruptcy public record AND the individual accounts that were included, suggesting that they're still outstanding debt.
It's time for the Federal government to reduce it's rates on all student loans. In this economy they are charging up to 8% interest on education loans. Given the cost of education, the Federal government must support, not punish borrowers. If they are willing to give money to colleges and support them, they shouldn't punish the future of our country.
1
How do we live in a country in which credit card debts, business debts, and even gambling debts can be forgiven -- but student debts are with you for life? How is that even possible? We are told that student debt is "good" debt, when it is literally the only kind that Never Goes Away.
Don't believe the hype.
Don't believe the hype.
3
The more I learn about the actions of big banks the more I realize how despicable they really are.
As the old saying went..."Mighty white of them...mighty white."
It brings to mind what I once heard an exasperated friend of mine, born and raised in eastern North Carolina, say to a bill collector dunning him for a breathtakingly big--and clearly beyond the means of anyone shy of plutocrat income--medical bill.
"You can't squeeze blood from a beet."
It brings to mind what I once heard an exasperated friend of mine, born and raised in eastern North Carolina, say to a bill collector dunning him for a breathtakingly big--and clearly beyond the means of anyone shy of plutocrat income--medical bill.
"You can't squeeze blood from a beet."
1
So let's see. An individual can run up a debt they know they will never be able to pay, and absolve it through bankruptcy. An employer is not supposed to know that the applicant was possibly financially irresponsible and a thief.
Of course, collectors should not be able to misrepresent the status of a debt that has been discharged through bankruptcy and the credit report should not show the debt as outstanding. However, the report should clearly show that the debt was discharged through bankruptcy or at least that the individual had gone bankrupt. After all, it is part of the individuals financial history.
If whoever requested the report chooses to deal with the person who went bankrupt, so be it. However, if they choose not to because of their financial history, that should be their right.
Bankruptcy does not eliminate your credit history, it just discharges the debt.
Make no mistake. If bankruptcy erases a bad credit history, credit losses will increase. Those who pay their debts and already bear the costs of the debtors who don't will see their credit costs go up or their credit denied.
By the way, these banks were loaned, not given, billions which they paid back with interest plus equity buybacks. It is the consumers who were given, not loaned, $50 billion in mortgage forgiveness which they will never pay back.
Of course, collectors should not be able to misrepresent the status of a debt that has been discharged through bankruptcy and the credit report should not show the debt as outstanding. However, the report should clearly show that the debt was discharged through bankruptcy or at least that the individual had gone bankrupt. After all, it is part of the individuals financial history.
If whoever requested the report chooses to deal with the person who went bankrupt, so be it. However, if they choose not to because of their financial history, that should be their right.
Bankruptcy does not eliminate your credit history, it just discharges the debt.
Make no mistake. If bankruptcy erases a bad credit history, credit losses will increase. Those who pay their debts and already bear the costs of the debtors who don't will see their credit costs go up or their credit denied.
By the way, these banks were loaned, not given, billions which they paid back with interest plus equity buybacks. It is the consumers who were given, not loaned, $50 billion in mortgage forgiveness which they will never pay back.
6
But they didn't get some sort of tax relief for those payments, i.e., weren't they able to write off large portions of those repayments.
I have to comment on this. As a paralegal that handles bankruptcy paperwork, many times the bankruptcy is NOT because someone is a "thief", or because they "ran up their debt". There are those cases that are clearly from abuse of credit or just irresponsible spending, but the majority of the clients I deal with have had unexpected medical claims, loss of income, or death of an income provider. Bankruptcy is intended to give them a fresh start. That cannot happen if the banks are not properly reporting the status of the debt. "Discharged" in a bankruptcy and "charged off" by the creditor are two entirely different things. And many times after the discharge the bank continues to sell off a debt that they know cannot be collected and the debtor now has to deal with a collection agency and prove their bankruptcy to them. Over and over again.
10
Gene, you appear to be one of the few commenters who understands and speaks the truth. Bravo.
1
You would think that bankers and banks would have some shame and do the right thing. After all, didn't they have the worst credit in the history of the world in 2008?
Yet somehow they were given almost $1Billion to cover their losses and they continue to be able to borrow from the Fed for next to nothing. They really are horrible people.
Yet somehow they were given almost $1Billion to cover their losses and they continue to be able to borrow from the Fed for next to nothing. They really are horrible people.
60
Greed = no shame.
"Despicible" would be a better adjective.
And once again, "they do not have to admit to any wrong doing I court". Always their legal way out of criminal charges and lawsuits - usually after paying fines or in this case - stop doing a practice that was wrong on many levels and against Federal bankruptcy laws/rules.
Their "legal system" solely made for and by THEM !
And once again, "they do not have to admit to any wrong doing I court". Always their legal way out of criminal charges and lawsuits - usually after paying fines or in this case - stop doing a practice that was wrong on many levels and against Federal bankruptcy laws/rules.
Their "legal system" solely made for and by THEM !
It should be illegal nationwide for employers to pull credit reports on job applicants and employees. It's a despicable practice, and it's none of their business. PERIOD.
Jill Duncan
Denver, CO
Jill Duncan
Denver, CO
186
Really? Would you want to employ someone who is living on the edge financially? That's a disaster waiting to happen.
1
so, your contention is that if somebody applies for a job where they handle money on a daily basis and therefore are at special risk to appropriate some of it to their own use, that whether these people have delinquent debts and/or bankruptcies is not relevant and should be shielded from employers? What planet are we on again?
3
A prospective employee does not have to give permission to a company to view their credit.
A prospective employee does not have to give permission to check references.
The employer cannot legally obtain this information with the explicit permission(e.g written) of the prospective employee.
No is a complete answer. PERIOD.
A prospective employee does not have to give permission to check references.
The employer cannot legally obtain this information with the explicit permission(e.g written) of the prospective employee.
No is a complete answer. PERIOD.
How is it that banks are getting away with refusing to comply with federal bankruptcy law? Having huge institutions which believe they are above the law is a terrible thing for the country.
144
Didn't you know?
Banks flaunt non-compliance.
Over a trillion per year in proceeds from illegal activities is laundered by US banks each year. British banks, about the same amount.
No one ever gets prosecuted for this. Usually, the banks settle out for less than 5% of the amount laundered.
If the asset forfeiture laws were applied to the banks who launder drug dealers' dough, the way they are applied to the dealer on the corner (his car gets confiscated) US taxpayers would own the banks.
Banks flaunt non-compliance.
Over a trillion per year in proceeds from illegal activities is laundered by US banks each year. British banks, about the same amount.
No one ever gets prosecuted for this. Usually, the banks settle out for less than 5% of the amount laundered.
If the asset forfeiture laws were applied to the banks who launder drug dealers' dough, the way they are applied to the dealer on the corner (his car gets confiscated) US taxpayers would own the banks.
3
They get away with it because they have the highest supporters in the land, supporters who make sure that laws are not passed or laws are recinded that might cause the banks to be inclined to offer their campaign support elsewere if they do not vote for these laws.
Elizabeth Warren sees the problems, but like that voice in the wilderness that cries out a warning, one has to be more interested in those the bank serves than just the bank itself.
Elizabeth Warren sees the problems, but like that voice in the wilderness that cries out a warning, one has to be more interested in those the bank serves than just the bank itself.
When you have individuals in politics and our government (and families, The Clintons) who consider themselves "above the law" and generally acceptable practices of good conduct - - then, no wonder when Big Banks and others do too.
1
Isn't that good of them.
18
another thing that should NOT appear on credit reports is when banks decide to close a charge account - usually because you haven't used it enough, not because you used it incorrectly. out of the blue you get a letter that your card will be closed, but somehow it shows up in your credit rating as if your credit line was denied or declined. likewise, it should not show up as a negative if the consumer cancels a credit card of his own initiative. all these things do is manipulate and cause a lot of grief for individuals.
94
I wholeheartedly agree. I closed a number of dormant credit accounts that I knew I would never use again - i.e., regional department stores after I'd moved away, etc. I also decided to reduce my available credit on major cards, after two friends were victims of identity thefts in which unused credit cards were activated and used extensively. These normal and prudent actions took 200 points off my credit score. Protest got me nowhere. Two and a half years later, it has almost recovered.
1
This matter is a bankruptcy discharge violation easily rectified by the presiding judge in the initial case with punitive damages and costs to cure It can also be removed by the credit reporting agency with a copy of the discharge order if necessary.
With tongue in cheek - I'm pleased to see the banks are agreeing to do what the courts have ordered them to do years before.
With tongue in cheek - I'm pleased to see the banks are agreeing to do what the courts have ordered them to do years before.
27
I couldn't help but think, well, that's really big of them...doing what they should have done in the first place. I am so happy that I don't have an account with one of these sleazy banks; just a medium sized, nice to deal with bank.
31
Name it.
It's not sleazy to want to know if someone is reliable and trustworthy. Would you want to rent to someone who has had money problems? What if they have them again and then you have to start eviction processes? They don't suffer, but you do and so do the people who pay their rent on time and pay their bills. Yeah, let's have them in a position where they are in charge of money, that will work great.
This is exactly why Elizabeth Warren should be President. The banks are out of hand. Nobody gets off without admitting guilt except for Wall Street.
81
How can the banks be allowed to sell debts they are cancelled? Shouldn't they be fined for doing that?
55
Because banks can do anything!
This is Mrs. These too-big-to-fail banks are so large and have operations that are so far-flung that one department does not know what the other department is doing. They know it is illegal to sell uncollectible debt, but they do it anyway. They get their pennies on the dollar for the portfolios, and the flipping begins.
Behind in your child support? Throw the offender in prison to make sure the child support isn't paid.
Fell behind in your debts and filed for bankruptcy protection? Don't hire the worker so they are likely to fall behind in their debts again.
Who put the clowns in charge of running this country?
Fell behind in your debts and filed for bankruptcy protection? Don't hire the worker so they are likely to fall behind in their debts again.
Who put the clowns in charge of running this country?
95
Umm... we did. All of us.
They're anything but clowns. Lots of other words come to mind. And they own the lobbyists and legislators who modified the bankruptcy laws to permit these practices, to prohibit discharge of student loans, and other debts that had traditionally been dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Nope, not hardly clowns. Way too vicious, monomaniacal, sociopaths, thieves, financial rapists, great vampire squid -- in short, banksters.
Nope, not hardly clowns. Way too vicious, monomaniacal, sociopaths, thieves, financial rapists, great vampire squid -- in short, banksters.
It's the same players playing the same game with the lives of people and the economy of the United States and the world. In 2008 they came into the light of day as the world's economy burned in the ashes of that fire.
"Good job" to the individuals in the government and judiciary for continuing to follow up this many years later. The big banks won't stop, even when caught. They'll just find another loop hole. But at least we can slow them down. It is truly disheartening that the senior executives of most of these organizations are the ones who held positions of power seven years ago and are responsible for the crisis.
"Good job" to the individuals in the government and judiciary for continuing to follow up this many years later. The big banks won't stop, even when caught. They'll just find another loop hole. But at least we can slow them down. It is truly disheartening that the senior executives of most of these organizations are the ones who held positions of power seven years ago and are responsible for the crisis.
41
A solution that would greatly strengthen the nation would be to nationalize the too-big-to-fail criminal banks and establish the National Bank of the United States. The National Bank would be a consumer and small business bank that would offer traditional banking services to all American citizens. Interest rates would be a few points above the Federal Reserve rates, just enough to ensure that this non-profit government bank couldn’t cost the tax payers anything. The “Bank” would offer checking and savings accounts, consumer and small business loans and make available most of the services that small community banks offered in the not too distant past. Credit card rates would likely be half or less of what consumers are now paying. The poor and middle class would greatly benefit from such an institution, as would the nation as a whole.
Of course, there would be the usual crying and whining of “the private sector can do it better” and all of the other foolish propaganda disseminated by the big corporations and their far right political puppets. The too big to fail criminal banks have shown that they can’t do it better – they are destroying our economy and harming our national security by undermining democracy and institutionalizing debt. It’s time to end their tyranny before they end our democracy.
Of course, there would be the usual crying and whining of “the private sector can do it better” and all of the other foolish propaganda disseminated by the big corporations and their far right political puppets. The too big to fail criminal banks have shown that they can’t do it better – they are destroying our economy and harming our national security by undermining democracy and institutionalizing debt. It’s time to end their tyranny before they end our democracy.
61
This is a great idea. We've seen how horrible big banks are doing. Every new product they create is one disaster after another for our economy. It would be in the best interest of National Security if they followed your suggestion. Nation Bank of the United States, I say we do it!
Yes, please put $10 trillion in deposits in the hands of our government.
1
What we need is a statute allowing the recovery of damages for willful slander of credit in cases where a creditor or collector refuses to remove an unenforceable or paid debt within 30 days of written request plus court costs and attorney's fees and punitive damages where the conduct of such refusal has been institutionalized. End these "settlements" where no blame and restitution is offered.
84
Better yet, STOP doing business with these horrible institutions. Pull your money out, tell them why and find a local and honorable credit union or a bank that has not been involved in screwing people every chance they get. They get away with it because people keep banking with them! Yes it is an inconvenience, but people CAN put a stop to this abusive behavior.
Good idea, but the collectors count on the timing issue, which no lawsuit can effectively address: You find one of these false credit negatives only when you need a fast response from a lender -- they're about to hire you; you're about to sell or re-finance your house. In situations like that no one can wait 30 days for clarification. And let's sing the praises of the bankruptcy lawyers & judges -- Elizabeth Warren's background is in this field -- who kept saying "This is wrong; this problem isn't fixed; what the banks are doing is not right." The President wasn't listening; Congress and Federal District Judges were mostly clue-less and business lawyers and the Department of Justice weren't interested in plaintiffs or victims could not promise an impressive pay day. The problems of "little people" ...
1
So are we to cheer and applause that the banks finally aren't holding us hostage to something they were legally supposed to do anyway? Give me a break this is exactly why we need agencies like CFPB, in fact we need to go much further.
103
The article says Ms. Gatling lost "job after job" because her credit report showed she had declared bankruptcy.
I wasn't born in the US; I immigrated to here about forty years ago. Since my arrival here, I have been appalled time and again about this society's obsession with credit worthiness. In this society how much money one has and how well he manages money seem to determine the basic worth of a human being.
Good parent? To heck with you! A pleasant neighbor? Tell it to the birds! A compassionate person? Go suck an egg! That is the attitude the American society has towards morality.
This sure is a country of tradespeople. That is well established by the reasons they wage wars, make allies and evaluate other cultures.
The biggest religion in America is not Christianity; it is called Profitability.
I wasn't born in the US; I immigrated to here about forty years ago. Since my arrival here, I have been appalled time and again about this society's obsession with credit worthiness. In this society how much money one has and how well he manages money seem to determine the basic worth of a human being.
Good parent? To heck with you! A pleasant neighbor? Tell it to the birds! A compassionate person? Go suck an egg! That is the attitude the American society has towards morality.
This sure is a country of tradespeople. That is well established by the reasons they wage wars, make allies and evaluate other cultures.
The biggest religion in America is not Christianity; it is called Profitability.
132
"This sure is a country of tradespeople. "
Yes; in a word, banias.
Yes; in a word, banias.
Just a thought but since you were appalled 40 years ago, why did you stay?
Did you somehow not know this before you emigrated here?
Some states have moved to prohibit use of credit reports on job applicants. This is a very good and overdue idea. Unless the person has direct responsibility for handing corporate funds (not mere a petty cash drawer or travel expenses.), there is no good reason to use a credit report to deny employment.
What we have set up in America is a Kafkaesque system whereby corporations, instead of governments, rule our lives. As one who has experienced it, I can say flatly that false information can be placed on anyone's credit report and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get taken off.
I spent several days years ago going from court house to court house trying to find non-existent "judgements" that were on my credit report. I could never find them, but the credit reporting bureaus would not take them off, even though they could not be verified. This is a huge scandal and a scam as well. I am convinced that people and businesses throw stuff on credit reports that are completely invalid in the hopes of collecting. If they get caught, "Oh, sorry, it was a mistake."
This is why we need a Consumer Protection Agency and a Congress that is ruled by a party other than the Republicans, who always, always favor whatever business wants to do to gouge money from people.
The purpose of govt. should be to protect citizens from thieves and to assist in helping them to be stable, productive citizens. Is that so difficult? I think not.
Doug Terry
What we have set up in America is a Kafkaesque system whereby corporations, instead of governments, rule our lives. As one who has experienced it, I can say flatly that false information can be placed on anyone's credit report and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get taken off.
I spent several days years ago going from court house to court house trying to find non-existent "judgements" that were on my credit report. I could never find them, but the credit reporting bureaus would not take them off, even though they could not be verified. This is a huge scandal and a scam as well. I am convinced that people and businesses throw stuff on credit reports that are completely invalid in the hopes of collecting. If they get caught, "Oh, sorry, it was a mistake."
This is why we need a Consumer Protection Agency and a Congress that is ruled by a party other than the Republicans, who always, always favor whatever business wants to do to gouge money from people.
The purpose of govt. should be to protect citizens from thieves and to assist in helping them to be stable, productive citizens. Is that so difficult? I think not.
Doug Terry
141
Where is our government of the people and for the people in all of this. The 2008 GFC would never have happened if they were protecting us. Then after it happened, what did they do to remedy the situation? They looked out for the wall street crowd and let main street businesses and "citizens" crash and burn.
It is about time the companies that caused the GFC helped those they hurt, if only a little bit.
It is about time the companies that caused the GFC helped those they hurt, if only a little bit.
24
This is a long time coming. A bankruptcy discharge is of little value if the debt is still shown on the credit report, because the inference is that the debtor should still be paying the debt, even though he or she no longer has the legal responsibility to do so -- and the creditor no longer has the legal right to collect it. The whole point of the discharge is to give the debtor a fresh start.
What many don't realize is that banks have been selling discharged debt to third parties, who then try to collect the debts anyway. Many debtors lack the resources to fight these illegal collection actions in court, and end up having to pay debts that they should not have to pay. And the unfairness starts with the big banks, who sell off their defaulted loan portfolios, even though they know the loans are discharged.
It's nice to read a little good news.
What many don't realize is that banks have been selling discharged debt to third parties, who then try to collect the debts anyway. Many debtors lack the resources to fight these illegal collection actions in court, and end up having to pay debts that they should not have to pay. And the unfairness starts with the big banks, who sell off their defaulted loan portfolios, even though they know the loans are discharged.
It's nice to read a little good news.
74
It is the same with charge-offs for people who don't declare bankruptcy. The statute of limitations for states is generally not more than six years and for the credit reporting agencies it is 7.5. At that time it is supposed to be removed from the credit agency reports automatically. I had to repay a debt that was 9.5 years old in order to get a mortgage. The irony of bank/mortgage company enforced morality.
Bankruptcy extinguishes debts, so in "selling" such debt, banks are not acting as if it were extinguished. I don't know what kind of legal opinions are being rendered here, but if you are selling something that technically or legally no longer exists it is a kind of fraud, and it is the only the merest sliver of defensibility that a debt being sold for collection to a third party who was not itself in front of the bankruptcy court is not governed by the bankruptcy laws. Likewise, if the debt was sold BEFORE the bankruptcy action, then the bank was not the existing creditor and should not have appeared as if it was.
1
Next step: allow those buried in student debt to file for bankruptcy.
Education greatly improves our society, yet we put the most onerous burdens on student borrowers.
Education greatly improves our society, yet we put the most onerous burdens on student borrowers.
56
This is yet another case of privatizing benefits and socializing costs. Here, the "student" gets the benefits of the education but the income taxpayers get the costs in the form of paying off the "students" debt.
GREAT point. My family knows an young woman who went to S. Korea for a year as an English teacher. Years have gone by; and she is afraid of returning home because of her student loan. She insisted that she will never be able to make payments with the salary she is expecting to earn.
When the universities have to pay for the discharge then I will agree, but not until then. No one held a gun to those kids head and the colleges are just getting money for free. They don't care if the students can get a job afterward. Maybe then it will stop, but no free money.
When you don't have a job, you charge the groceries. Then if you can't pay those debts, you can't get a new job. So we punish people for not having money by preventing them from getting jobs. Who is running this circus?
90
What the likes of B of A, JP Morgan and other such financial Institutions too big fall, they say or falsely promote is one thing and what they actually do is totally something different. The only way anything will change, when such corporations start going bankrupt themselves.
36
Break them up, so that they're no longer "too big to fail". I wasn't happy about bailing them out with my tax dollars the first time around; I'll be damned if I have to do it again.
In other words, I don't think they're credit-worthy. (Irony, anyone?)
In other words, I don't think they're credit-worthy. (Irony, anyone?)
35
They did go bankrupt, but the taxpayers bail them out. Now, on top of that, the taxpayers are continue to be punished.
26
They may go bankrupt, but it's to enable them to renounce their obligations like employee pensions or collectjve bargaining agreements while continuing to pay obscene salaries to management.
15
So the some big banks have agreed to obey the law after causing thousands pain. They should be broken up and suffer the full consequences of their illegal activity. But wait, they are above the law aren't they.
85
And what does this "temporary basis" mean? "Late last year, Synchrony Financial agreed to provide similar relief, at least on a temporary basis."
7
Yes, they are above the law because big money hires professional bribers they call lobbyists who "lobby" law makers into doing whatever benefits big money.
19
Good question. Perhaps we should suspend their "license" or right to practice banking. If we fine a bank, like most large corporations they expense it ( thank,you tax code). But temporarily shutting them down, well, that would do wonders for THEIR credit rating.
1