XPN WHY CRAs DO NOT WANT YOU TO SEE SUBSCRIBER REPORTS

Names, Types, Descriptions, Testimony
David A. Szwak

XPN WHY CRAs DO NOT WANT YOU TO SEE SUBSCRIBER REPORTS

Postby David A. Szwak » Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:38 pm

XPN CLAIMS NOT TO HAVE BACK UP/ARCHIVES OF ITS DATABASE/FILES. THE ADMIN CAN BE USED TO DETERMINE WHAT DATA APPEARED IN A REPORT AT A GIVEN POINT IN TIME. XPN BULLIES SUBSCRIBERS TO TRY TO CONCEAL SUBSCRIBER VERSION REPORTS FROM THE CONSUMER ESPECIALLY AFTER CAUSING A DENIAL.


1
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
2 SHERMAN DIVISION
3 JAMES E. JENSEN, *
*
4 Plaintiff, *
* CIVIL ACTION
5 VS. * NO. 00-CV-0040
*
6 EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.*
*
7 Defendant. *
8
9 *********************************************************
10 ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CAROLYN HELM
11 AUGUST 16, 2000
12 VOLUME 1
13 *********************************************************
14
15
16 ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION OF CAROLYN HELM, produced as a
17 witness duly sworn by me at the instance of the Plaintiff,
18 taken in the above-styled and -numbered cause on the 16th
19 day of August, 2000, A.D., beginning at 9:54 a.m. to 2:29
20 p.m., before LISA C. HUNDT, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
21 in and for the State of Texas, reported by machine
22 shorthand, in the offices of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue,
23 located at 2727 North Harwood, Dallas, Texas, in accordance
24 with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
25 agreements hereinafter set forth.

35
25 Q. In your investigation, were you able to determine

36
1 whether Mr. Jensen truthfully stated that he had been
2 denied credit by MBNA in March of 1998 and, again, in
3 December of 1998 in your review of the records?
4 A. Well, all we can tell from the credit report is
5 that they inquired.
6 Q. Were you able to review the actual denial letters
7 supplied to Mr. Jensen by MBNA?
8 A. I reviewed the correspondence, but I don't
9 remember the particular companies. It could be a part of
10 the packet.
11 Q. If MBNA wrote Mr. Jensen and indicated that they
12 had chose to deny him credit based upon their review of an
13 Experian credit report, do you have any evidence to deny
14 that?
15 A. No. There are inquiries.
16 Q. From your review of the administrative report, can
17 you tell me what derogatory items appeared on Mr. Jensen's
18 credit report in March of '98?
19 A. Not from the review of this 2 of 2000 admin
20 report. I can see derogatory as of this date, but I --
21 that would not be what was on the March '98 report.
22 Q. But you would be able to -- through reading the
23 admin report, to determine what was on the report in March
24 of 1998, correct?
25 A. We would be able to see what accounts were open

37
1 and appeared to be on that report, but I couldn't say for
2 sure unless I looked at the credit report that was
3 accessed. There are open dates of the accounts, so that
4 would indicate that they possibly were reporting sometime
5 during that time frame.
6 Q. Well, there would -- there would be indications
7 that an account had been opened, but there would also be an
8 indication of the monthly cycle of reporting by that
9 creditor, correct?
10 A. It would be -- this indicates a frozen copy, so it
11 doesn't necessarily indicate that they reported every month
12 or every three months or every six months.
13 Q. But you would be able to -- to glean from the
14 administrative report which accounts did appear at that
15 particular time frame -- during that time frame?
16 A. Well, not necessarily, David. The admin report
17 shows what's on the report right now. Just because an
18 account was opened doesn't necessarily indicate that it was
19 reported during that time frame.
20 Now, the actual report itself would, dated that date,
21 would tell us conclusively what was on the report.
22 Q. Okay. Well, assuming that -- that the copy of the
23 credit report could not be found, assuming MBNA -- and I'm
24 just saying that as an assumption; I don't know whether
25 they can produce it or not.

38
1 But if they could not produce it, I guess my question
2 is: Do you agree or disagree that, from looking at the
3 admin report, you could go back and decipher whether or
4 not, for example, Capital One Bank had been reporting to
5 Experian for a certain period of time, such as, on this
6 particular item, it shows five cycles on the Capital One
7 Bank account. You could determine that at the time the
8 admin was taken, that account had been on there for five
9 cycles of reporting?
10 A. That's what it would indicate, but five cycles
11 could mean a lot of different things. The best indication
12 of what was on the report is -- is a report that the
13 consumer received shortly after being -- getting a denial
14 letter.
15 Q. Right. That leads me to another question. A
16 credit report that is issued to the consumer by Experian
17 does not always contain the same information that is
18 reported to a subscriber. Is that true or not true?
19 A. The credit report that the consumer receives has
20 additional information that the subscriber does not see.
21 Q. Is it also true that the version that a subscriber
22 receives has information that the consumer does not
23 receive?
24 A. I don't believe that to be true.
25 Q. Would it -- would a subscriber's version contain

39
1 perhaps credit-scoring information?
2 A. Yes, that's true. But that's not produced by us.
3 Q. You say it's not produced by Experian?
4 A. At the national consumer assistance center. It's
5 not produced on the personal credit report.
6 Q. Well, that's true. Credit scores are not being
7 disclosed by Experian to consumers, correct?
8 A. That's because we're not producing them on the
9 personal credit report. And the scoring factors, in my
10 limited scope of the scoring factor itself is developed by
11 models, depending on who the creditor is.
12 Q. Those models and the scoring itself is a service
13 sold by Experian to its subscribers, true?
14 A. It can be. There are other models.
15 Q. Now, other models might include risk factors,
16 denial codes? I use those terms -- those phrases
17 interchangeably; is that true?
18 A. I'm only familiar with risk factors. I don't know
19 about denial codes. There again, that's not my area of
20 expertise.
21 Q. A risk factor might be a reason why a creditor
22 could ostensibly deny credit to a consumer?
23 A. That would be totally up to the creditor.
24 Q. That's correct. But those would be factors that
25 are provided by Experian as part of their services to the

40
1 creditor?
2 A. If it was built into the model. And there again,
3 that's a product that Experian sells.
4 Q. And there are also summary profiles that are
5 afforded to the creditor which are not afforded to the
6 consumer; is that true?
7 A. It's -- there -- it depends on what the creditor
8 buys as far as the format of the credit report itself. The
9 information is the same.
10 Q. When you say "the information," the actual metro
11 tape information is the same?
12 A. I'm not real familiar with the system issues.
13 What I'm saying is that the credit report that the consumer
14 receives has the information of -- account information,
15 address information, all of that.
16 Now, if it's summarized where there's nine trade lines
17 or two public record information, the consumer still gets
18 that information.
19 Q. Okay. But you would agree with me that there
20 are -- there are services, products -- I'm not sure which
21 way you want to define them. There are particular codes
22 and scores that a creditor might receive that would not be
23 received or ever part of a consumer disclosure?
24 A. Yeah, interpretive reports, yes. But the
25 information -- the credit information is the same.

41
1 Q. Now, in connection with Experian reports, at one
2 point in time, items that might be considered derogatory
3 were marked with an asterisk; is that correct?
4 A. That's for the consumer.
5 Q. For the consumer to review, but it also marks them
6 with an asterisk on the subscriber versions; is that
7 correct?
8 A. It's been a long time since I've seen a subscriber
9 report, so I don't remember if it does that.
10 Q. As we sit here today, are you able to tell me what
11 items appear to have been reporting about Mr. Jensen in
12 March of 1998 which would have had a derogatory status?
13 A. Not based on this admin report. If you have a
14 report, I possibly could let you know that.
15 Q. I don't know that I have a March '98 copy of his
16 credit report. Do you know if any information was removed
17 from Mr. Jensen's credit report between March of '98 and
18 the time that that particular admin was generated?
19 A. Yes, I believe so.
20 Q. Do you -- can you tell me what items would have
21 been removed?
22 A. I can tell by the D/R log. That's one way to --
23 to have an indication of what items were to be removed.
24 Q. Well, rather than do that right now, we'll go to
25 the D/R log in a moment.

42
1 A. Okay.

David A. Szwak

Postby David A. Szwak » Mon Dec 26, 2005 9:18 am

Historically, the CRAs had subscriber contract provisions making subscribers promise not to show the subscriber version credit report copies to the consumer/applicant. In ore recent times, it is more of an "understood" matter that the industry chooses not to place in writing but, be assured, when a subscriber shows the report to the consumer, there are repercussions.

The FTC addressed, in an Informal Staff Op Letter, a question from a subscriber as to whether it violated law to allow the consumer to see it or have a copy. The FTC said it is not illegal. The question is whether the provision is contra bonos mores [against public policy] and ought to be illegal if enforced against a subscriber. Though the consumer may lack standing, the subscriber is frequently cut off for other ostensibly legitimate reasons after-the-fact. Of course, consumers are the third party beneficiaries of the subscriber contracts, although no consumer is listed by name.

Some subscribers still sell reports directly to the consumer.

CRAs do not want us discussing this issue. The reason is that the CRAs sell a different report to the subscriber than the consumer. The consumer version has LESS information contrary to some members' in the industry claims to the contrary.

The CRAs want the subscribers to conceal the report and then the CRAs claim that you cannot prove your credit denial damage or defamation claim if you cannot get the lender to show you the report [or tell the truth about its contents].

The reason the reports differ goes back to the method of inquiry. A "consumer disclosure" [credit report copy] is generated with "complete" ID info so the report is restrictive in content and presumably more accurate. The subscriber version can be accessed through inputting minimal ID data. Further, the matching program engaged for each is different. The disclosure program requires stricter matching compliance [points of correspondence], while the subscriber access is "looser" requiring less points. I hope this highlights the issues some. The key to a case is to access your report on the same day a subscriber pulls it and possess them side-by-side to disclose the 1681e[b] violation. The disclosure report, oddly, will comply with 1681g. Think about it.


Return to “Experian Secret Documents”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests