Hi Sertas, thanks for commenting. CFPB wants to make sure consumers have the information they need without being overwhelmed. You mentioned consumers should have all pertinent information, but what information exactly do consumers need most? For example, would using the original creditor's name be enough to avoid customer confusion, and would this be enough to make it clear on a credit report that only one debt is involved?
The FICO impact on sold debts appearing twice needs to be addressed with the credit reporting agencies and the companies that create credit scores. Creditors have a right to report the status of a debt, and shouldn't be precluded just because it already appears by the previous creditor. However, the double penalty against the consumer is certainly unfair. But it's not the collectors' fault. It should be addressed in enforcement of the FCRA.
Aaron Racicot
1
I think all states should have their statute of limitations moved to 7 years to coincide with the reporting rules.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
2
Hi Sertas, thanks for commenting. CFPB wants to make sure consumers have the information they need without being overwhelmed. You mentioned consumers should have all pertinent information, but what information exactly do consumers need most? For example, would using the original creditor's name be enough to avoid customer confusion, and would this be enough to make it clear on a credit report that only one debt is involved?
View this comment in the discussion thread
RHN91362
3
The FICO impact on sold debts appearing twice needs to be addressed with the credit reporting agencies and the companies that create credit scores. Creditors have a right to report the status of a debt, and shouldn't be precluded just because it already appears by the previous creditor. However, the double penalty against the consumer is certainly unfair. But it's not the collectors' fault. It should be addressed in enforcement of the FCRA.
View this comment in the discussion thread