How FACT-ACT Section 312 amends FCRA Section 623

Share |

Today on C-Span, I watched and listened to a Senator speak about a bill that would infuse small community banks with about 7 billion dollars to give our lagging economy a shot of much needed "adrenaline." While the recent economic downturn has wreaked havoc on general bank lending, small banks (those with revenues under 10 billion annually) have suffered the most. Even as banks like Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, and Bank of America (which currently holds more mortgage paper than any bank in the US) are starting to pay back the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) funds they borrowed from us tax payers, they still refuse to loosen their new, tighter lending policies. This fact is forcing our government consider new ways to stimulate the economy without raising taxes. Timothy Geithner, the current US Treasury Secretary said at a Senate hearing that TARP funds were ultimately meant to spur small business, but admitted that the program has not performed as well as anticipated. Anyone who is smarter than a tree knows that banks aren't going to start lending again until people start working again. While I don't subscribe to the Ronald Reagan trickle-down economic theory, I do believe that big and small businesses, including banks will be last to participate in any kind of economic recovery until they see a sharp increase in jobs all over the country.

Unemployment compensation claims are still increasing for heavens sake!! The Obama administration is now touting that at least claims aren't increasing at the same rate they were a year ago. I guess that's an interesting perspective, but it does not help those who still cannot find work after more than a year of being on the unemployment compensation rolls. Let's be clear, the US economy is still in trouble, and some are even talking about a "double-dip" recession. Most agree that the housing crisis was the cause of the recession, and is likely the key to any future economic recovery. Because the housing crisis also caused a crisis of dependable and accurate credit information, our banking system has become heavily dependant upon procedures and systems that do not allow misinformation to occur.

To this end, Congress has amended the FRCA Section 623 with a new FACT Act law that is located at Section 312. Section 623 of the FCRA is entitled: Responsibility of Furnishers of Information to Consumer Reporting Agencies. In the interest of accuracy, especially with regard to a consumers ability to dispute the accuracy of information directly with an issuer of information/credit, or an original creditor, companies realized it was in their best interest to have policies and procedures in place that show how they control, and access data on it's customers.

Section 623 places a requirement on issuers of information to provide accurate information to the credit bureaus. The FCRA gives consumers the right to directly engage the issuer of credit in the dispute process by demanding to see exactly HOW they came to their conclusions about debts they say the consumer owes them; Issuers are required to provide, upon written request, all documents that prove the legitimacy of the debt; prove the alleged debt is strictly accurate with regard to the amount, correct dates of delinquency, and all late payments. If they cannot provide proof in those and other areas, they must cease reporting the information to the credit bureau, who in turn must delete the debt listing from the consumers credit file.

The new FACTA Section 312 gives FCRA Section 623 the teeth it should have been born with. It places not only a requirement on issuers of information to keep complete and accurate records, it also creates a right of the consumer to bring a lawsuit under FCRA Section 616 - wilful non-compliance. The FCRA requires that issuers of credit must perform a "reasonable investigation" and that they must have appropriate audit plans in place to evaluate their own ability to retain complete and accurate records. If they do not have such a program in place, there is no way they can claim they are following reasonable procedures to insure their data is accurate.

What does all of that mean for a consumer trying to restore their credit? It means the dispute process just got a little easier, in some ways. The dispute process can be complicated, but these two important sections of the FCRA and FACTA make it easier for the consumer to navigate the process. Just remember, my brother in arms, that credit repair is not about finding loopholes in the law, or luck. It's about protecting your rights as a consumer and holding companies accountable for violating those rights.