The Credit Restoration Industry

January 29, 2007

Apex Credit Services: Credit Card Annual Fees?

Filed under: Uncategorized — apexcreditservices @ 9:00 am

In a Senate hearing targeting credit card practices, one consumer advocate suggests an annual fee might lighten the load on those who pay high penalties.

By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writerJanuary 26 2007: 12:38 PM ESTNEW YORK (CNNMoney.com)

In most instances today, it would be silly to pay an annual fee for a credit card simply because most cards don’t have them anymore. But in a Senate Banking Committee hearing examining credit card practices this week, one consumer advocate suggested those who pay their balances in full every month (about half of all cardholders) should pay a small annual fee to credit card companies.

Why? To pay their fair share. Say you charge $1,000 at the beginning of every billing period and pay it off in full by its due date a month or so later. That’s essentially an interest-free loan from the credit card company to you. The affectionate term of art for those of us who do this is “deadbeat” because we’re not that profitable for the credit card companies. Sure, issuers make money off of you through fees paid by merchants whenever you charge a purchase. And you’re deemed a “valued customer” because you make an issuer’s portfolio look better when they show it to the securities markets.But let’s face it, such model behavior on your part isn’t going to plow record profits into an issuer’s pockets.

Credit card fees charge higher

A recent report from the Government Accountability Office estimated that about 70 percent of the credit card industry’s revenue comes from interest and penalty rates, with penalty rates accounting for a growing portion. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), meanwhile, noted that for 2006, banks are expected to collect a record $17.1 billion in credit card penalty fees, up 15.5 percent from 2004 and up 906 percent from the $1.7 billion it collected in 1996.

When it comes to the bottom line for issuers: Bad is good. Those who carry balances on which they pay interest and fees are subsidizing cardholders with no revolving balance who may even be in rewards programs, said lawyer Michael Donavan of Philadelphia-based Donavan and Searles. He represents those who have unwittingly fallen into many of the sandtrap fees and penalties embedded in hard-to-understand credit card agreements. Restoring small annual fees on cards used by “non-revolvers” would bolster revenues for card issuers, who then in turn might not make life so expensive for those with revolving balances.

See why being good can be bad for your credit score

A lot of time at the Senate hearing, which included witness testimony from representatives of three credit card issuers — JP Morgan Chase, Capitol One and Barclays — was spent discussing (and agreeing about) the need to improve the disclosure of the terms of the credit card agreement — to make it more straightforward and easier to understand.But, Donovan testified, “it’s not a question of financial literacy and never will be.” The problem as he sees is it is the ability of credit card issuers to change the terms of the agreement with just 15 days’ notice.”The credit card is one of the only contracts in common law anywhere in which the superior bargaining entity can change its terms at anytime for any reason,” Donavan said. “If they can change the contract on an existing balance, then they will always have an unfair advantage.”

His suggestion: Issue cards with shorter expiration periods. So, instead of five years, make it one, he said. When the card comes up for renewal, then the issuer would be free to change its terms. Other consumer advocates at the hearing testified that consumers deserve more than just better disclosure. They called for the prohibition of what they classify as deceptive and abusive practices. Harvard professor and bankruptcy expert Elizabeth Warren, who considers some credit card pricing practices “the tricks and traps that keep [card customers with balances] on the financial ropes,” said thanks to safety standards, “no one has to be an engineer to buy a toaster. No one has to be a crash test expert to buy a car. It’s time for safety regulations in credit card products as well.”

Among the practices she and others at the hearing said they’d like banished:
Universal default pricing: With this policy even if you have a sterling payment record on your card account, your issuer may jack up your rate if you’re late on bills on other accounts or if your credit score falls. The number of issuers with this policy has gone down recently.
Double-cycle billing: If you charge $1,000 one month, and pay off $900, a bank may charge you interest on the full $1,000 in the next month and beyond until the remaining $100 is paid off. Carter Franke, executive vice president of marketing at JP Morgan Chase, said that due to customer confusion, the bank decided very recently to end its practice of double-cycle billing. She did say, however she didn’t feel it was an unfair practice, likening it to a bank loan, where you start paying interest immediately on the full amount, not just a portion of the principal.
Zero-tolerance late payment policies: Tamara Draut, director of economic opportunity programs at Demos, noted that customers who may be a day late or even an hour late in their payment are often hit with the same $35 late fee as customers who might be three months’ late. Being subject to a couple of late fees may also result in a penalty rate imposed on your account, which can top 30 percent. And that punitive rate may then be applied not only to future purchases but to an existing balance as well, effectively boosting the cost of the cardholders’ past purchases.Sen. Dodd noted that Thursday’s hearing would be the first of several to examine credit card practices. It’s not clear whether any legislation would result from the effort or whether lawmakers and the credit card industry might try to come to an agreement on best practices.But Dodd did issue a warning to credit card companies during the hearing: “If you currently engage in any business practice that you would be ashamed to discuss before this Committee, I would strongly encourage you to cease and desist that practice. Irrespective of the current legality of such practices, you should take a long, hard look at how you treat your customers.

January 27, 2007

Apex Credit Services ID Theft Prevention Tips

Filed under: Uncategorized — apexcreditservices @ 5:12 am

Many of us make New Year’s resolutions to improve various aspects of our lives. One resolution that may not have occurred to you, but is as important as making healthy choices or getting out of debt, is to protect your credit. Regularly monitoring your credit can help you stay on top of your financial situation, but it can also serve as an early warning of identity theft. Resolve to protect your credit this year with help from the following tips:

1) Be Careful About Giving Out Personal Information

Never give anyone your credit card number, Social Security number, or other personal information unless you know why it’s needed, how it will be used, and you’re sure of to whom you’re giving the information. Never provide this information via e-mail and be wary of phishing attacks.

2) Shred Your Mail

Thieves often “dumpster dive” to get your personal information; to prevent this, you should shred your credit card receipts, bank statements, expired credit cards and pre-approved credit offers. If you’re going on vacation, have a neighbor collect your mail, or ask the postal service to place a vacation hold on your mail.

3) Only Carry the Credit Cards You Need That Day

You can minimize your risk of loss by only carrying the credit cards you plan to use that day. This is also a great way of avoiding using credit cards for everyday purchases, or from overspending. If you lose a credit card, contact your credit card company immediately to report the loss and have the card cancelled.

4) Keep Personal Information Safe In Your Home

If you have a roommate, when you have guests, or if you have service personnel into your home make sure your personal information and credit card statements are in a secure location that isn’t easily accessible by anyone other than you. Make sure your computer is equipped with an active firewall when you access the internet, and always double check that any site which requests your personal information starts with https://.

5) Don’t Carry PINs and Passwords

Memorize your passwords and personal identification numbers instead of carrying them with you. Avoid using easily available information like your mother’s maiden name, your birth date, the last four digits of your SSN or your phone number, or a series of consecutive numbers. The best passwords are a combination of letters and numbers.

January 25, 2007

New Breed of Collection Scum: Dangerous Scum Nonetheless

Filed under: Uncategorized — apexcreditservices @ 3:40 am

New Collection Scum: Dangerous Scum Nevertheless

LOUIS MOSSEY IS THE kind of guy who pays his bills on time. He tends to his impeccable credit history the way a gardener cares for a flower bed. He wouldn’t dream of dodging a debt. So what’s up with the collection letters? First, there was a threatening note from an agency representing Blockbuster Video. Mossey couldn’t help but roll his eyes when he found it in the mailbox. After all, he was planning to pay the $8 late fee the next time he rented a movie. “I thought it was the silliest thing I’d ever seen,” he says. “Then I got the notice from Green Mountain Power.” Green Mountain Power is a utility that serves a quarter of Vermont, including, until recently, Louis Mossey. When Mossey moved last year, he dutifully called Green Mountain to pay the final bill. Apparently, there was a snafu. Several months later he got a notice from Green Mountain’s collection agency demanding the now-overdue balance. The grand total: $1.28. Mossey, a man with a fine sense of humor, immediately phoned the agency and offered a deal: “Can I pay this on the installment plan?”
It’s often not intentional, but even the most responsible consumers sometimes have a few pesky debts they’ve neglected to pay. Maybe it’s the parking ticket rotting in the back of the glove compartment, or the $55 owed the doctor while the insurance tangle gets unknotted. For decades consumers put off these bothersome debts ad infinitum. After all, it’s not like a brass-knuckled librarian was going to show up at your door to collect your $20 overdue-book fine. Until now.
If you think you’ve noticed an uptick in collection activity, it’s not your imagination. New technology has sharply cut the cost of working a collection account, allowing agents to profitably pursue smaller debts. At the same time, collection firms are winning new business from cities and towns, targeting citizens who’ve neglected to pay municipal fines. And don’t go thinking old debts are off limits — there’s a growing army of debt buyers who specialize in ancient loans that the original creditor has long since forgotten.
All told, the number of collection agents has doubled since the early ’90s while industry revenue tripled, to $15 billion. Last year agencies recovered nearly $40 billion in debt — that’s $133 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. The upshot: Consumers are getting tough treatment over debts they’d long regarded as minor annoyances. These days everyone from your lawn-care man to part-time eBay entrepreneurs can find a collection agency willing to take their case. Government agencies in New York and Colorado recently hired collection firms to go after toll scofflaws. Even ex-cons are feeling the pinch. Pauline Kussart, owner of Madison, Wis., agency H.E. Stark, says she regularly gets business from county prisons who want former inmates to pay the tab for cigarettes and jailhouse haircuts.
The most obvious reason for the industry’s growth: overspending. Since 2001, nonmortgage consumer debt grew 26%, to $2.3 trillion. Meanwhile, investors discovered that debt collection can be profitable in good times and bad. Following the dot-com crash, debt collection was a lone bright spot in the market; everyone from hedge funds to companies like General Electric got into the game. But it’s not just industry heavyweights busting our kneecaps. There’s also a growing number of one-man shops catering to small businesses that the big collection agencies won’t bother with. As they’ve discovered, collections may be a tough business, but the barriers to entry are surprisingly low.
YOU WOULDN’T THINK Judy Angeramo’s tiny agency in Deerfield Beach, Fla., represents the new wave in collections. Her one-room office, which shares a small plaza building with a Brazilian storefront church, houses a computer, a two-drawer file cabinet and a microwave oven purchased for $10 at the church rummage sale. But it’s a busy place. Angeramo’s clientele includes doctors, dentists, a horse trainer, a gym, several Christian schools (”You wouldn’t believe the language that comes out of these people!”), two country clubs, a pool cleaner and a man who regrets making a $9,000 business loan to his buddy. In any given month, she processes roughly 1,500 collection claims. Multiply that by the hundreds of similar outfits opening across the nation, and you can understand why it’s getting harder to dodge a debt.
Consultant and author Michelle Dunn says membership in her online networking forum for collection entrepreneurs has tripled in the past three years, to more than 1,000. Amazon.com sells a dozen titles like Robert Bills’s How to Start a Home-Based Collection Agency. The word is out: It’s easy to get started. In 18 states, including California and Ohio, you don’t even need a license to start collecting, says Matt Pridemore, vice president of collection-licensing firm Cornerstone Support. Anyone with a phone and a computer can jump right in. And plenty do. According to Dunn, folks starting a collection agency these days include “prison guards, cops, office workers” — people whose collection knowledge is often limited to the contents of a paperback book.
Angeramo had more experience than most when she launched Collection Results. Following stints as a Red Cross worker and loan secretary, she took a job with a friend who inherited an agency; before the year was over, she went solo. She got a Florida license, spent $1,500 on collection software, launched a simple Web site and opened the yellow pages to find customers. “I called every private school in the county,” she says. Two years later she has 64 clients and is hiring part-time help. She’s no Bill Gates, at least not yet: Monthly revenue averages $2,500 on collections of about $7,500. But Angeramo says she works six-day weeks because there’s a larger cause at stake. Consumers rip off small businesses, she says, because they think they can get away with it — and that’s not fair. While she addresses debtors with brisk respect, her scorn for uncooperative deadbeats is obvious. “‘I lost my job! My kid is sick!’” she hoots, mimicking their excuses. “We have a phrase for that: It’s like they’re throwing up on you. Ninety percent of the time, it’s all lies anyway.”
Angeramo doesn’t let debtors know she’s basically a one-woman show. Besides, it hardly matters. Just like the big agencies, she can report unpaid debts to the credit bureau: Getting access to the system was a matter of filling out an application, submitting to a background check and showing the credit-bureau inspector that she had a lock on the filing cabinet and a password on her computer. Now she can report anyone who’s 30 days late. “And I never let anyone forget that,” she says. It’s no empty threat. When it comes to your credit rating, any collection action is bad news, even over a $60 dentist bill.
In a way, however, small agencies like Angeramo’s hearken back to the days when collection was a time-consuming craft. While Angeramo dials the phone by hand and may spend several hours on a single account, you can be sure that the large agencies are far more efficient, not to mention crafty. Computer-assisted dialing helps their agents hound up to 15 debtors an hour, and sophisticated software lets them focus their efforts on accounts that are more likely to pay: Stable, high-income homeowners are profitable targets, says Rob Fite, who heads up collection technology for Fair Isaac. And good luck dodging the call — the software even predicts what time you’ll be home.
If you owe less than $100, the agency might do away with the live agent entirely. Instead, you’ll get a call from a computer — a digital voice demanding your credit card number. And the pièce de résistance? Virtual payment negotiations. These days debtors get letters telling them to go online and submit a payment schedule. After you offer, say, $500 a month, the omniscient computer will analyze your credit situation and either accept your offer or demand more, says Jeff Mains, CEO of software maker Sentinel. Thanks to all this technology, per-account costs can be whittled down from $20 to less than $2, allowing consumers to experience the joy of a collection call over a $13 gas bill.
One beneficiary of all this new technology: Uncle Sam and his minions. While towns and states have long relied on collection agencies to handle tax evaders, they’re increasingly hiring help with everything else. Government receivables outsourced to collection agencies grew more than 30% over the past three years, says Nick Bernardo, head of consultancy Net Gain Marketing. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, a collection law firm with 1,800 government clients including the Internal Revenue Service, says its annual debt collection has doubled since 2001, to $1 billion, as cities ranging from Chicago to Tom Bean, Tex., (population 995) turn over everything from dog-bite fines to ambulance fees.
It all sounds a little goofy, until it happens to you. Three years ago Jeff and Terri Piland left their car in the no-parking zone at Denver International Airport to help a handicapped relative with his bags, then refused to pay the inevitable parking ticket. The Pilands didn’t discover the black mark on their credit report until recently, when they applied for a home loan. Now they believe it helped put them out of the running for the mountain-view bungalow they’d been eyeing. “Someone else will be moving into that house, and that’s hard for us,” says Terri.
But nothing annoys consumers more than getting dinged by the library. Tamela Dunn was shocked last summer when she got a collection letter demanding payment for two cartoon books her 12-year-old son David borrowed from the Harford County, Md., library. “I remember when the library charged you a dime a day and that was the end of it,” sniffs Dunn. Library manager Jane Eickhoff says patrons get six weeks and several notices before their accounts are turned over; she stands by the strategy. “We feel responsible to the taxpayers of Harford County,” she says. At least it stops short of credit reporting. Its collection agency, Unique Management Services, says most of its 800 library clients request credit reporting over amounts as small as $10.
Perhaps the strangest birds in the crowded collection aviary are the debt buyers. Unlike agencies that recover debts for clients, debt buyers purchase loans from creditors and keep every penny they collect. The big debt-buying firms typically handle accounts that are relatively easy to collect — fresh credit card and cell phone debt, for example, purchased directly from the creditor. But smaller outfits live on the fringes of the debt ecosystem, snapping up the right to collect on a random assortment of loans older than the Bush Administration. “We are the bottom-feeders,” proudly declares Maverick Robinson, founder of Shapiro, Baines & Associates, a small debt-buying outfit in New Castle, Del. “We deal with the worst of the worst — the oldest, dirtiest, most worthless stuff on the ground.”
Robinson will buy and collect on just about anything — medical bills, jewelry-store accounts, old gym memberships — he usually works accounts that other collection firms have given up on. That’s okay with Robinson. He buys debt so cheaply — paying less than a penny on the dollar — that he needs to collect only on a tiny percentage. Still, it’s tough work. Consumers often have no legal obligation to pay those old debts, and credit bureaus don’t include them on credit reports. To collect, Robinson employs all sorts of psychological tactics. “I studied Jim Jones and Hitler in college,” he says. “I studied brainwashing. I perfected it.”
When he makes a call, Robinson uses a weird, whiny voice that the debtor won’t forget; he appeals to what he refers to as the person’s “moral turpitude” — their sense of shame. Since this tactic seems to works best on midwesterners, Robinson focuses on accounts originated in Iowa and the Dakotas. If a debtor is resistant, he often offers to settle the debt for a fraction of the full amount. Someone who incurred a $1,000 debt while in school, for example, will be offered “the student amnesty program — we can settle this debt now for just $297.86.” (The weird digits are a trick borrowed from Wal-Mart.) If all else fails, Robinson resells the debt on Bid4Assets.com, an online auction site that allows anyone with a credit card to buy consumer debt and collect it for themselves.
NO ONE ARGUES THAT Americans should dodge their debts — when Joe Deadbeat doesn’t pay his bills, the rest of us get stuck with higher prices. As the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals notes, the billions in debt recovered for creditors translates to $350 in savings per U.S. household per year.
Unfortunately, the collection trend creates problems for honest consumers. Thanks to the antics of cowboy debt buyers relying on dubious data, many people report getting calls about bills they paid years ago. At the same time, some companies are so eager to send accounts to collection that they neglect to fix billing snafus. “They get lazy with what they turn over,” says Bethellen Keefe, a Florida collection-agency owner. No wonder consumer complaints to the Federal Trade Commission over collections rose 15% last year, to more than 66,000. However, collection agents don’t have much incentive to help consumers untangle billing errors. Most rely heavily on a 15% to 20% commission — an arrangement that encourages them to wrangle payments by any means necessary. Furthermore, few have much experience in the business. One large collection firm, Asset Acceptance, recently revealed that the annual turnover rate for new hires is a whopping 98.5%.
But as much as consumers complain, it’s easy to see why companies will only want to see more collections activity. Last year debt recovery added $200,000 to the bottom line for Green Mountain Power, the Vermont utility that dunned Louis Mossey for his $1.28 shortfall. “For a small utility, it makes a difference,” says Green Mountain spokesperson Dottie Schnure. And for some, it’s a matter of sweet revenge. Palm Beach entrepreneur Victor Grosso, who hired Judy Angeramo to collect customer debts related to his $8-a-week dog-waste-removal service, says that while the numbers may be small, it’s a matter of justice — he deserves compensation for his work. And he can’t help but sound a little thrilled as he reports his wealthy clients’ reactions: “They freak out!” he says. “They don’t think a little pooper-scooper company could send them to collections.”

January 23, 2007

Credit Repair Lesson IV: Avoid CCCS

Filed under: Uncategorized — apexcreditservices @ 6:11 am

Credit Repair Lesson IV: Avoid CCCS

By Apex Credit Services LLC

Many consumers face large debts which they cannot repay.  The causes for this are voluminous in nature, however, there are certain things that one should avoid when faced with the above issue. 

First and foremost, it is generally a good idea to avoid Consumer Credit Counseling Services (”CCCS”).  Such as the reasons that one may face seemingly insurmountable debts, the reasons to avoid CCCS are many.

In theory, CCCS is a noble venture insofar as it allows for interest reductions on individual accounts while consolidating multiple bills into a lump monthly payment.  Again, it must be noted that this is a good idea on a theoritical plane alone because in practice, it does not often work to a consumers’ advantage.

The first detrimental possibility a consumer faces when soliciting and engaging CCCS’s services is that their bills may not be paid in a timely fashion or at all.  A cursory search of the internet will yield a plethora of such horror stories wherein this is the case.  The problem with paying CCCS, or any third party directly which then in turn should remit payment to your creditors, is that you are at their mercy as to whether your bills are paid on time or in fact, at all. 

To be fair, CCCS is not the only entity which has received complaints of this nature.  Most debt consolidation companies have.  Nevertheless, if your debts are not paid in a timely fashion, your credit reports will be notated as such and your FICO scores will be adversely impacted.

This leads to the next basis to avoid CCCS.

When a consumer participates in a CCCS program, most if not all of their account tradelines are notated as doing so.  In essence, this has the same effect as bankruptcy inasmuch as creditors can and will view this information.  The notations imply little more than such a consumer cannot handle their obligations and needed someone to clean up the mess.

If you face debts beyond your ability to pay them back in a “timely” fashion, first consider offering settlement on the accounts.  Typically, most creditors will not entertain such notions unless the accounts are past due or charged to profit or loss; i.e., charged-off.  If possible, try to make arrangements whereby the tradeline is reported as paid as agreed or at least the status field reflects in that fashion.  For tradelines placed by collection agencies, simple deletion is the most desired result.

If you do not have the funds to even attempt settlement, your options are two fold.  First, consider bankruptcy if you are eligible.  Petition and after a short while thereafter, begin the dispute process of the tradelines as prescribed under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The same would apply to the preceding paragraph for any accounts settled but, not reported in a favorable fashion.  Second, walk away.  This is advised if the debts are very low in nature and if one is considering building violations for potential counter claims and/or complaints for later down the road.

In any event, CCCS will not likely yield the average consumer a better result in terms of FICO scores than either of the two above presented options.  In some cases, using their services can actually reduce ones scores below that if one elects the options set forth above. 

January 18, 2007

Credit Repair & Universal Default

Filed under: Uncategorized — apexcreditservices @ 6:41 am
Universal Default On The Way Out?
Is the Controversial Credit Card Universal Default Clause Finally on the Way Out?      
Written by By Nancy Castleman, CardRatings.com Consumer Reporter   
Tuesday, 02 January 2007
USA Today reported the other day that credit card issuers seem to be moving away from the practice of “universal default” — where one late payment on a credit card or bill can raise the interest rate on a person’s other credit cards — as well as the cost of future mortgages, car loans, and insurance policies. (That’s in addition to any fees that might have to be paid on the original late payment.) USA Today reported the other day that credit card issuers seem to be moving away from the practice of “universal default” — where one late payment on a credit card or bill can raise the interest rate on a person’s other credit cards — as well as the cost of future mortgages, car loans, and insurance policies. (That’s in addition to any fees that might have to be paid on the original late payment.) The article sites four major lenders who are either not using universal default or are changing how they do use it: Citibank, Chase, Discover, and American Express. While the end of universal default would be very welcome news to cardholders and consumer advocates everywhere, unfortunately, that may not be what’s going on. For example, Linda Sherry, the Editorial Director of Consumer Action, the highly respected nonprofit advocacy organization, advises us not put too much stock in the notion that universal default is going away any time soon: “It’s my sense that lenders are backing off from it. But I’d be amazed if they really stop using it. It’s still a risk management tool they have a lot of confidence in.”

In fact, Consumer Action’s annual credit card survey found that almost half of banks have universal default policies, where rate hikes can be triggered by more than just late payments. It might be because someone’s credit score got worse for unrelated reasons, say a bounced check, too much debt or credit, going over the credit limit, and even shopping for a car loan or mortgage.

Change May Be in the Offing

There are some recent developments that give consumer advocates reason to hope that the practice of universal default can be curtailed. For example, there are at least three separate bills wending their way through the House and Senate that would prohibit universal default. Consumers who would like to see this practice outlawed should let their Senators and Representatives know now. Interested? To contact your elected officials in Washington, click here, enter your zip code, hit enter, and you’ll see all the contact information you will need, including the appropriate email addresses.

In the Meantime Whether lenders change their universal default policies at all, and whether they do it voluntarily or due to legislation, there is no doubt that our credit reports and credit scores will continue to be used by lenders, employers, landlords, and insurers. To make sure you get the best possible outcomes when you are shopping for a credit card, mortgage, job, apartment, or insurance policy, heed this important advice from Consumer Action’s Linda Sherry, whose number one tip is: pay your bills on time. “This is something that impacts consumers in a really really big way. Don’t go on media reports that universal default is going away.

All the risk management policies used by companies today include credit reports. Make sure yours is clean — there may be some errors on it. Don’t even allow your life to go into the direction in where your credit report gets tarnished — it could really seriously hurt you.”

January 16, 2007

WV Attorney General Files Against Capital One

Filed under: Uncategorized — apexcreditservices @ 6:45 am

West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw has filed suits to
enforce subpoenas issued to Capital One Bank, a Virginia bank that
markets and issues credit cards to West Virginia consumers.

Capital One

• Low limit, high fees
• Unauthorized account
• Trouble closing account
• Payoff plans
• Identity theft
• Fraudulent transactions
• Late posting of payments

News
• Capital One Blitzes Credit Reports Looking For New Prey
• Capital One Harms Credit Scores by Withholding Data, Suits Charge
• Capital One Buys North Fork Bank
• WV Sues Capital One for “Deceptive and Illegal” Practices
• WV Subpoenas Capital One Records

McGraw previously issued subpoenas to these corporations in
connection with investigations of their marketing and servicing of
credit cards and other products and services, and debt collection
practices.

The attorney general began investigating Capital One Bank and Capital
One Services after receiving numerous complaints concerning Capital
One Bank’s credit cards.

Some consumers complained that they received pre-approved offers of
credit that advertised credit limits of up to $5,000, but received
cards with limits of $200 or $300. Consumers also complained that
these low limit cards had very high fees: a $59 annual membership
fee, a $29 late fee, and a $29 over-limit fee.

Consumers who charged amounts close to the $200 limit the first month
would already be over limit when they received their first statements
because of the $59 annual fee.

Some consumers quickly realized they could not afford to keep the
card because of the high fees and high interest rates. Consumers who
tried to cancel their cards were told they could not cancel so long
as there was an outstanding balance.

In the meantime, late fees, over-limit fees, and interest continued
to accumulate even after the consumers tried to close their accounts.
Paying their minimum monthly balance did nothing to reduce these
consumers’ balances.

McGraw says other products were marketed to consumers when they
called to activate their new credit cards. These products included
a “Payment Protection Plan,” a credit disability/unemployment
insurance. This product was sold to consumers who were never eligible
to receive its benefits because they were already disabled and unable
to be employed.

Consumers also complained that Capital One Bank’s advertising
regarding interest rates for transferring balances to new credit card
accounts was misleading.

“Consumers must read every bit of fine print in credit card
solicitations and cardholder agreements,” McGraw said. “Many
companies advertise low fixed rates for the life of the balance but
only disclose in fine print that this is true only so long as the
account remains in good standing. Making a single payment just one
day late, going over the credit limit, or having a returned payment
may put the account in bad standing. When that happens, the bank
raises the interest rate on the account to a high penalty rate.”

McGraw’s suit also names Capital One Services, Inc., a Delaware
corporation that services the credit cards issued by Capital One
Bank.

January 15, 2007

MTV Wants Debtor Troubles

Filed under: Uncategorized — apexcreditservices @ 4:41 am

Drowning in Credit Card Debt? MTV Wants to Hear From You.

MTV News is looking for people between the ages of 18 and 26 who have at least $3,000 of credit card debt that they are having trouble paying.If you’re interested in being a part of MTV’s news project, you can e-mail mtvnews@mtvstaff.com with your name, age, location, occupation, e-mail address and phone number, as well as a photo. Also provide information about when and where you got your first credit card, approximately how much debt you’re in and what you’ve done to try to get out of debt.

January 12, 2007

Judicial Forum Trumps Arbitral in the 9th

Filed under: Uncategorized — apexcreditservices @ 7:48 am

En Banc Ninth Circuit Court Strikes a Blow for Fairness and Common Sense in Dispute Resolution

by Michael J. Quirk and Kate Gordon

Ninthcircuit Nearly two years after a Ninth Circuit panel wrongly held that arbitrators, not courts, should decide whether arbitration clauses are unfair and invalid under state law, the en banc Court came out with a decision firmly bringing the law back on track. In the case of Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., No. 03-15955 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2006) (en banc), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit restored the rights of parties to challenge contracts that unfairly strip them of access to the civil justice system. In doing so, the en banc court overturned the earlier three-judge panel, whose misapplication of federal law would have allowed companies to enforce one-sided and abusive mandatory arbitration clause terms against workers, consumers, and small-business franchise operators like Connie Nagrampa.

Ms. Nagrampa’s victory comes after a long and complicated saga. She first attempted to open her own business in 1998 as a direct mail coupon advertising franchise operator. When Nagrampa contracted for this franchise with Mailcoups, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, the company’s sales representative told her she would receive a 41% profit return on her investment. Instead, she incurred over $180,000 in personal debt, while paying Mailcoups over $400,000 in fees. Backed into a financial corner, she terminated the franchise after just two years.

Not content with the fees it had already collected from Nagrampa before she terminated the franchise, Mailcoups filed an arbitration action against her seeking another $80,000 in fees. Mailcoups filed this action pursuant to a standard-form mandatory arbitration clause in its franchise contract – a clause that it requires all franchise operators to accept. The arbitration was originally filed in Los Angeles. Nagrampa objected, requesting that the arbitration be moved nearer to her home and work in the San Francisco Bay area; she also objected to the burdensome cost of arbitration. The American Arbitration Association instead transferred the arbitration even further away, to Boston, the venue designated by Mailcoups in its arbitration clause. Nagrampa again objected to the venue and costs, arguing that these conditions effectively barred her from participating and putting forth her claims in the arbitration, but the arbitration proceeded without her. The arbitrator ultimately entered an order requiring Nagrampa to pay Mailcoups over $160,000.

Since the venue and costs blocked her from bringing counterclaims in arbitration, Nagrampa filed suit in court in California claiming that Mailcoups had violated her rights under California’s Franchise Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  She also claimed – as she had throughout the pre-arbitration negotiations – that the arbitration clause was unconscionable based on its non-negotiable, one-sided and exculpatory terms concerning venue and cost.  After Mailcoups removed her case to federal court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that the arbitration clause was not unconscionable and that Nagrampa would have to arbitrate her claims in Massachusetts under the clause’s terms.

When Nagrampa appealed, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court, but on different grounds.  Going squarely against California law – and at least six of the court’s own decisions in this area – the panel held that a court could not even decide Nagrampa’s challenge to the arbitration clause, but instead that she would have to go to arbitration to challenge the clause requiring her to arbitrate.  The court reached this conclusion by misapplying Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (1967).  In Prima Paint, the Supreme Court held that courts can only decide challenges to the validity of an arbitration clause, while an arbitrator must decide a party’s challenge to the validity of a whole contract that contains an arbitration clause.  The Ninth Circuit panel misapplied Prima Paint by misconstruing Nagrampa’s challenge to Mailcoups’ arbitration clause as a challenge to the entire franchise contract.  While the panel recognized that the only terms Nagrampa challenged as unfairly one-sided and exculpatory were the terms of the arbitration clause, the panel noted that Nagrampa also alleged that the terms were part of a non-negotiable contract of adhesion.  This, the panel alleged, was a challenge to the entire contract, rather than to the arbitration clause alone.  The mistake that the panel made was in treating this allegation as a separate challenge rather than as a necessary component of the argument that the arbitration clause (and only the arbitration clause) is unconscionable.

Nagrampa challenged the panel opinion by petitioning for rehearing by the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc.  In our briefs on her behalf, we argued that the panel opinion was seriously flawed for several reasons.  First and foremost, we challenged the result as patently unfair because Ms. Nagrampa would have to travel 3,000 miles from California to Boston and pay over $6,000 in arbitration fees just to assert her claims that these travel and cost requirements were prohibitive.  Second, we argued that the panel misapplied Prima Paint by confusing a challenge to the arbitration clause for a challenge to the whole contract.  Third, we argued that the decision overturned at least six Ninth Circuit cases where the court had resolved identical challenges to overreaching and exculpatory arbitration clauses (rather than send these challenges to arbitration).  The panel had distinguished these cases by saying they involved challenges to stand-alone arbitration clauses where no other contract terms existed.  In our brief, we countered that this distinction defies common sense because it says, in essence, that where there is a non-negotiable and overreaching arbitration clause, the addition of more non-negotiable terms strips a court of authority to assess the arbitration clause.  As a result, companies could force courts to rubber stamp one-sided, overreaching arbitration clauses that strip workers, consumers, and franchise operators like Ms. Nagrampa of their ability to vindicate their rights in any forum.

The Ninth Circuit granted Nagrampa’s petition and, in its en banc decision of December 4, 2006, embraced Nagrampa’s arguments that (1) her challenges to the arbitration clause were for the court, not an arbitrator, to decide; and (2) the arbitration clause is unconscionable and unenforceable under California law. On the first question, the eight-judge majority (out of eleven) held that, since the only provision Nagrampa’s complaint challenged as unconscionable was the arbitration clause, this challenge is for a court to decide under Prima Paint. The Court found that if “the arbitration provision is unenforceable, then [any] remaining claims that address the contract as a whole were never properly arbitrable.” On the second question, a seven-judge majority of the Court held that the arbitration clause was unconscionable under California law because of both the disparity in bargaining power between a national corporation and a first-time franchise operator, and because of the clause’s one-sided terms requiring Nagrampa to arbitrate across the country but leaving Mailcoups’ rights – even the right to go to court on certain issues – essentially intact. The Court found that “[t]he forum selection provision has no justification other than as a means of maximizing advantage over franchisees.” The Court thus held that the arbitration clause was not enforceable, and remanded the case for Nagrampa to pursue her claims in federal court.

By overruling a panel decision that required parties to arbitrate challenges to inaccessible arbitration systems, the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision restores a measure of fairness and common sense to this area of the law. The decision ensures that courts will continue to play a role in ensuring that waivers of people’s rights to access the public court system are truly voluntary, and that the private arbitration systems that companies impose against workers, consumers, and franchise operators provide an accessible and fair alternative to the court system. Perhaps most important, the decision gives Ms. Nagrampa the opportunity, after years of fruitless negotiations and attempts at resolution, to finally have her side of the franchise story heard in a balanced forum.

January 10, 2007

FICO’s View on Vantage Score

Filed under: Uncategorized — apexcreditservices @ 4:44 am

March 23, 2006

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

BACKGROUND

On March 14, 2006, the three national credit reporting agencies, Equifax, Experian and TransUnion, jointly announced the creation and availability of VantageScore, a new credit risk score. According to their announcement, the new score was developed through a collaborative effort by all three credit reporting agencies. The score is being independently marketed and sold through each of the three credit reporting agencies via licensing agreements with VantageScore Solutions, LLC, a company that the agencies have established. The following FAQ provides answers for use by Fair Isaac employees to the most common questions directed to Fair Isaac in the days immediately following their announcement.

Q: Did Fair Isaac help develop the new score?
No. Fair Isaac was not involved in the development of the new score, and any questions regarding VantageScore from sources outside of Fair Isaac should be directed to Equifax, Experian and TransUnion.

Q: Who has more experience in credit bureau-based risk scoring, Fair Isaac or the credit reporting agencies?
Fair Isaac has the most experience. Behind our FICO® scores’ unsurpassed performance is 50 years of analytic expertise and 25 years of analyzing credit reporting agency data. We developed the first credit risk score in 1958, the first credit reporting agency score models in 1981, and launched the first general-purpose FICO score in 1989. Our analytic scientists have the most experience studying the nuances of data, allowing us to make the scores more powerful with each redevelopment.

Q: Is there a market for the new score? At this point, we don’t know enough about the underlying science of the new score to comment in detail.
However, the ongoing – and growing – success of the FICO score demonstrates that Fair Isaac is already meeting the market’s demand for a consistent measure of credit risk across the three credit reporting agencies. FICO scores have been available since 1989 and are used by most lenders when making billions of credit decisions annually. FICO scores are routinely tested and have become relied upon by lenders, rating agencies, the Wall Street community and a growing base of consumer advocates and personal finance experts. Fair Isaac credit bureau risk scores provide a common language for risk in many industries, including consumer credit, commercial credit, mortgage and telecommunications. They are endorsed or used by such industry-leading organizations as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for secondary mortgage lending, and Standard & Poor’s and Fitch IBCA in the rating environment.

Q: Will the introduction of the new score hurt Fair Isaac?
We are confident that, provided a choice, lenders will continue to rely upon FICO scores to make the most objective, fair and profitable risk management decisions. Competition has been a fact of life in our industry, and the individual credit reporting agencies have attempted in the past to compete with Fair Isaac by offering scoring alternatives. Yet, FICO scores have continued to be used by the vast majority of banks and lenders in the United States to make the smartest possible lending decisions and grow more profitable. This is the first time that the credit reporting agencies have coordinated their efforts to develop a new risk score and we will monitor lender reactions and take all steps necessary to ensure Fair Isaac remains lenders’ scoring system of choice.

Q: Will the new score replace FICO scores in lenders’ risk evaluation process?
Based on what we know now, as long as the market is free from competitive restraint, competition from FICO scores (both Classic and NextGen) will be significant because FICO scores have widespread acceptance by consumer lending and securitization users, as well as acceptance by key regulatory bodies as reliable. Their confidence in FICO scores is the result of the FICO score’s proven predictability and Fair Isaac’s continuous work to update and fine-tune our scoring models to ensure the most precise risk predictions and score explanations possible. Lenders and regulators also value our neutrality in the credit data industry and our ability to objectively analyze and utilize credit bureau data – which differs from bureau to bureau – to generate highly predictive, reliable risk scores.

Q: Does the introduction of VantageScore signal a breakdown in Fair Isaac’s relationship with its credit reporting agency partners?
No. Even as our partners introduce VantageScore, Fair Isaac is working with each of the three credit reporting agencies to continue delivery of billions of FICO® scores annually to lenders and other businesses. And we are planning to introduce additional products that Fair Isaac is developing in collaboration with the credit reporting agencies. Of course, we cannot speak to the intentions of the credit bureaus.

Q: How does the new score’s scale differ from the FICO scoring scale?
According to the credit reporting agencies, their VantageScore uses a numeric scale of 501-990, and also a parallel alphabetic scale that classifies consumers into fixed A, B, C, D, F scoring 2 grades. These alpha grades strongly suggest that all lenders agree on levels of risk in neat, permanent scoring bands, which is contrary to Fair Isaac’s long experience with lenders. Again, we cannot comment on a system we have not yet seen. However, Fair Isaac can say that the FICO scale has served lenders and consumers well for decades, and is increasingly being understood and accepted by consumers as the standard score range. The classic FICO score uses a numeric scale of 300-850 that is well understood and accepted within the financial services industry and regulators. Most lenders’ strategies and securitization decisions within this industry are geared toward the use of the FICO score ranges and consumers. A new, different score range could create confusion for consumers and lenders alike.

Q: What does this different approach mean for consumers?
At this stage, we don’t know enough about the new scoring system to comment in detail. However, a number of consumer groups, including Consumer Federation of America, have expressed the concern that the introduction of VantageScore adds confusion to a marketplace already filled with consumer misperceptions about credit scoring. Today, consumers can view their FICO credit scores and be confident that the scores are an indication of how most lenders view their credit risk. We will continue our efforts to help consumers understand that FICO scores are the same scores most lenders use now – and will continue to use – to make their lending decisions. myFICO.com is the one place where consumers can access their FICO scores across multiple credit reporting agencies and receive education from Fair Isaac on managing their credit scores.

Q: The three companies say this new score was developed in response to client demand. Have lenders been asking for a new scoring system?
No. Fair Isaac stays in close contact with all the major U.S. lenders, and none of them have reported to us a desire for a new scoring system. Originally introduced in 1989 and available from all three credit reporting agencies since 1991, our FICO® scores have provided the same consistent and highly effective predictive power regardless of the credit reporting agency providing the data. We have regularly updated and improved our FICO scoring models in response to open feedback from major lenders.

Q: The bureaus claim that the new score uses the same scoring model across all three credit reporting agencies. How is the FICO score approach different?
Each of the credit reporting agencies deploys the Fair Isaac scoring model design for Classic FICO scores and NextGen FICO scores. We believe our design utilizes the most predictive elements at each of the agencies to ensure highly predictive performance at each of the agencies – and to ensure that lenders can trust that a 680 FICO score generated on one bureau’s data 3 indicates the same relative level of risk as a 680 FICO score on another bureau’s data. Fair Isaac believes that every FICO score should be as predictive as possible based on the available data.

Q: How will the introduction of the new score impact myFICO.com?
We have confidence that myFICO.com will continue its impressive growth as consumers understand that FICO scores continue to be the scores that most lenders use to make credit decisions. In fact, in the days after the bureaus introduced their new score, myFICO.com marked its top two revenue days in the history of the service.

Fair Isaac Statement Concerning Forward-Looking Information
Except for historical information contained herein, the statements contained in this document that relate to Fair Isaac, including statements regarding its FICO score offering and the benefits to be derived from the offering, are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially, including issues involving the marketing and distribution arrangements for Fair Isaac’s products, any unforeseen technical difficulties related to the implementation, use and functionality of Fair Isaac’s product offerings, the risks that customers will not perceive material benefits from the offerings, failure of the products to deliver the expected results, the possibility of errors or defects in the offerings, regulatory changes applicable to the use of consumer credit and other data, and other risks described from time to time in Fair Isaac’s SEC reports, including its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2005, and quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005. Forward-looking statements should be considered with caution. If any of these risks or uncertainties materializes or any of these assumptions proves incorrect, Fair Isaac’s results could differ materially from Fair Isaac’s expectations in these statements. Fair Isaac disclaims any intent or obligation to update these forward-looking statements.

Fair Isaac and FICO are registered trademarks of Fair Isaac Corporation, in the United States and/or in other countries. Other product and company names herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.

January 8, 2007

House Member to Look into CRA’s

Filed under: Uncategorized — apexcreditservices @ 5:55 am

Consumers Complain of Delays in Correcting, Updating Credit Reports

By Martin H. Bosworth
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0…aus_frank.html

January 1, 2007

Observers had predicted that reforming the credit industry would be a prime objective of the new Democratic Congress, and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is taking up the challenge.

Frank, the incoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, says he will hold hearings in 2007 on how the credit bureaus can improve their reporting and error-correcting procedures.

ConsumerAffairs.Com receives a constant stream of complaints from irate customers regarding credit bureaus’ inability — or unwillingness — to protect the personal information of the very people they claim to assist.

“It took me over three months of letters, emails and calls to no avail,” said Georgia of Lodi NJ in a recent complaint to ConsumerAffairs.Com. “The workers at Experian read from script and do NOTHING to help one out.

“They’ve listed accounts that have been closed since 1998 and have inaccurate addresses on my credit report. My credit is as pristine as possible and would like to keep it that way, but cannot trust Experian,” she said.

Rep. Frank’s pledge followed a Boston Globe article spotlighting the difficulties consumers have in trying to correct mistakes in their credit reports.

“We will have some hearings about how to fix this,” Frank told the Globe. He said that laws mandating free credit reports for all Americans were not enough, especially if the procedures to correct errors were difficult and time-consuming.

Frank and his Senate counterpart, Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), incoming chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, have already promised to target the mortgage industry and pass new protections against predatory lending.

Profiting From Fear
Errors in credit reporting can cost consumers jobs and loans, as well as leading to identity theft and fraud. Each of the three credit bureaus — Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union — has a laborious process for correcting errors that requires sending extensive documentation to prove the information is inaccurate or out of date.

The credit agencies generally blame the lenders for reporting inaccurate data, and for only reporting negative information, such as delinquencies, bankruptcies, or liens.

But the sale of credit reports continues to be a billion-dollar business for the credit bureaus, which collect buy information from lenders and sell it cheaply to lenders and other business clients while charging consumers three or four times as much to view their own information.

Consumers can spend years and thousands of dollars trying to clean up innaccurate credit reports, even those that are mixed up with others’ information, being denied jobs, loans, and places to live all the while.

Worse yet, the “fraud monitoring” services credit agencies offer to protect against identity theft often don’t work. They don’t detect Social Security number theft, for example, which leads only to a new file being opened under the new account holder’s name.

The three major credit bureaus — Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union — all offer comprehensive, and expensive, “identity protection” packages, which claim to insure the user from damages incurred by misuse of their personal data and issue notifications of fraud to creditors and other agencies who view consumers’ credit on a regular basis.

Yet many Americans find themselves threatened with collection or unable to obtain credit due to a credit bureau’s mistakes. The major CRA’s consistently fail to report accurate information, change credit ratings based on erroneous data, and often “mix up” customers’ information, resulting in innocent consumers being harrassed or penalized for actions they did not commit.

Moreover, as Consumers Union pointed out in 2005, “When a company improperly breaches a consumer’s sensitive information, the onus is on that consumer — the victim — to fix the problem.” Customers have to contact the credit bureau and attempt to prove that they were not responsible for the actions committed using their identity, a process made more difficult by the lack of direct contact options most credit bureaus provide.

A recent New York Times article detailed the failings of credit monitoring services, including the admission by credit agency spokespersons that they fail to detect SSN-based fraud, even as credit monitoring rakes in $900 million a year for the agencies that offer it.

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.