Can I fix my credit myself
Yes of course you can. It’s just like brain surgery, you could do it yourself but is it desirable. When something is a s important as your credit to your overall happiness, prosperity and access to the American dream why would you have anyone who is not the best handle it for you. The credit bureaus are in the bad credit business. That is not our opinion, that is the opinion of Congress. Recently the house passes resolution HR 4120 which is the fifth such amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This new law is designed to do what the other 4 laws before it failed to do and that is force the credit bureaus to follow the law. According to HR 4120:
(E) Credit reports are also increasingly used for many noncredit decisions, including by landlords to determine whether to rent an apartment to a prospective tenant and by employers to decide whether to hire potential job applicants or to offer a promotion to existing employees.
(F) CRAs have a statutory obligation to verify independently the accuracy and completeness of information included on the reports that they provide.
(G) The nationwide CRAs have failed to establish and follow reasonable procedures, as required by existing law, to establish the maximum level of accuracy of information contained on consumer reports. Given the repeated failures of these CRAs to comply with accuracy requirements on their own, legislation is intended to provide them with detailed guidance improving the accuracy and completeness of information contained in consumer reports, including procedures, policies, and practices that these CRAs should already be following to ensure full compliance with their existing obligations. (I) Current industry practices impose an unfair burden of proof on consumers trying to fix errors on their reports.
(J) Consumer reports containing inaccurate or incomplete credit information also undermine the ability of creditors and lenders to effectively and accurately underwrite and price credit.
(K) Recognizing that credit reporting affects the lives of almost all consumers in this country and that the consequences of errors on a consumer report can be catastrophic for a consumer, the Consumer Bureau began accepting consumer complaints about credit reporting in October 2012. Incorrect information in reports and frustrations about burdensome and time-consuming process to disputing items is are consistently top reported concerns from consumers.
February 2019 report titled “Automated Injustice Redux: Ten Years after a Key Report, Consumers Are Still Frustrated Trying to Fix Credit Reporting Errors”, showed that at least two of the three largest CRAs use quota systems to force employees to process disputes hastily and without the opportunity for conducting meaningful investigations. At least one nationwide CRA only allowed dispute resolution staff 5 minutes to handle a consumer’s call. Furthermore, these CRAs were found to have awarded bonuses for meeting quotas and punished those who didn’t meet production numbers with probation.
(R) Unlike most other business relationships, where consumers can register their satisfaction or unhappiness with a particular credit product or service simply by taking their business elsewhere, consumers have no say in whether their information is included in the CRAs databases and limited legal remedies to hold the CRAs accountable for inaccuracies or poor service.
(B) CRAs have a statutory obligation under the FCRA to perform a reasonable investigation by conducting a substantive and searching inquiry when a consumer disputes an item on their report. In doing so, CRAs must conduct an independent review about the accuracy of any disputed item and cannot merely rely on a furnisher’s “rubber-stamp” verification of the integrity of the information they have provided to CRAs.
(C) In “Report to Congress Under Section 319 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003” released by the Federal Government in December 2012, found that 26 percent of survey participants identified at least one potentially material error on their consumer reports, and 13 percent experienced a change in their credit score once the error was fixed.
(D) Consumer Bureau examiners have identified repeated deficiencies with the nationwide CRAs’ information collection. In the fall 2019 “Supervisory Highlights”, the Consumer Bureau noted continued weaknesses with CRAs’ methods and processes for assuring maximum possible accuracy in their reports. Examiners also found, with certain exceptions, no quality control policies and procedures in place to test consumer reports for accuracy.
(F) In the winter 2015 “Supervisory Highlights” released in March 2015, the Consumer Bureau reported that one or more nationwide CRAs failed to adequately fulfill their dispute-handling obligations, including by not forwarding to furnishers all relevant information found in letters and supporting documents supplied by consumers when they submitted disputes failing to notify consumers that they had completed investigations, and not providing consumers with the results of the CRAs’ reviews about their disputes.
(I) The consistently high volume of consumer complaints submitted to the Consumer Bureau about credit reporting errors, coupled with the largest CRAs’ repeated quality control weaknesses found by Consumer Bureau examiners, show that the nationwide CRAs have failed to establish and follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy of information and to conduct independent investigations of consumers’ disputes. These ongoing problems demonstrate the need for
legislation to–
(i) enhance obligations on furnishers to substantiate information and require furnishers
to keep records for the same amount of time that adverse information about these accounts may appear on a person’s consumer report;
(ii) eliminate CRAs’ discretion to determine the relevancy of materials provided by consumers to support their dispute claims by instead requiring them to pass all material onto furnishers and eliminating CRA’s discretion to deem some disputes frivolous or irrelevant when a consumer resubmits a claim that they believe has been inadequately resolved;
(iii) enhance educational content on CRAs’ websites to improve consumers’ understanding of the dispute process and to make it easier for all consumers to initiate claims, including by providing these disclosures in other languages besides English; and
(iv) create a new consumer right to appeal reviews by CRAs and furnishers of the initial
disputes.
(3) Injunctive relief.–
(A) Despite the fact that the FCRA currently provides implicit authority for injunctive relief,
consumers have been prevented from exercising this right against CRAs. Legislation explicitly clarifying this right is intended to underscore congressional intent that injunctive relief should be viewed as a remedy available to consumers.
(B) Myriad findings by the courts, regulators, consumers, and consumer advocates make clear that CRAs have failed to establish adequate standards for the accuracy and completeness of consumer reports, yet the nationwide CRAs have demonstrated little willingness to voluntarily retool their policies and procedures to fix the problems.
(C) Providing courts with explicit authority to issue injunctive relief, by telling the CRAs to remedy unlawful practices and procedures, would further CRAs’ mandate under the FCRA to assure the maximum possible accuracy and completeness of information contained on credit reports.
(D) Absent explicit authority to issue injunctions, history suggests that the nationwide CRAs are likely to continue conducting business as usual in treating any monetary settlements with individual consumers and fines imposed by State attorneys general and Federal Regulators, simply as the “cost of doing business”.
Unless you or your advocate has or plans to dedicate their lives to mastering debt and credit law then trying to fix your credit yourself may become an exercise in futility.