Just wondering how everyone handles the credit score disclosure..since customer does not sign....do you still keep a copy in file? In past had examiner tell us as long as we could show doc in system where loan docs were prepared, we didn't need copy, have an external reviewer saying we do.. And we are thinking probably would not be a bad idea but I was just curious to see what some of you do? Thanks!

We're keeping a copy in file.

Keeping a copy is a best practice but it is not a regulatory requirement.

We're using a copy that is produced in Laser Pro that requires a signature. This was a recommendation from our compliance auditor.

I recommend NOT getting a signature. If you get the signature in most cases but not in all, it looks like you didn't provide it in those cases. Why add a burden that isn't required?

I do not recommend signatures when not required either. It is one more opportunity for error. Can you turn off the signature line in LaserPro? It is often possible to switch that off.

We are a commercial bank and we have 2 consumer loans on our books. We just had our compliance audit and that was one of the recommendations to keep the signature on there since we don't have many consumer loans on our books--none of which require a credit score disclosure. Sorry, I hijacked the thread.

I too recommend not getting signatures when not required. Our notice is produced by our CRA and when they first came out they had signature lines. We had the CRA remove the signature lines.

I'm trying to find out in what circumstances the Credit Score Disclosure is and is not required? Does it only apply to consumer loans w/ 1-4 units?

Consumer purpose, applicant/borrower is a natural person and loan will be secured by a 1-4 family dwelling (dwelling and the land). It applies to both approved and denied loans. See 623(a)(7) for more details.

Actually the NHLA / Credit Score Disclosure requirements are discussed in 609(f) & (g). 623(a)(7) addresses the Negative Information Disclosure.

The NHLA / Credit Score Disclosure is required for any application initiated by a consumer for a consumer purpose that is to be secured by 1-4 residential real property.

Thanks Dan.

At our bank, when a lender orders a trimerge credit report, the NHLA and credit score disclosure accompany the credit report. Both disclosures are mailed with the early disclosures and a copy of everything is retained for documentation with date mailed.

The credit bureau charges for this service. I believe you can also have the credit bureau mail out the disclosures for you. Of course this will cost a bit more.

In the event of a single bureau report ordered in connection with a 1-4 family secured consumer application, our loan operations folks can generate the disclosures. Again copies with date delivered are retained in the file/denial/withdrawn.

We recently went to a seminar and the speaker stated that we should always send seperate credit score disclosures to husband and wife. He also said that we should list no more than four reasons from the credit report.

Does anyone have any quidance on this? We have always done a joint disclore and never had an examiner question us on it. we also list all reasons listed on the credit report.

Is this a new hot button or have we just lucked out?

For joint applicants we send one notice addressed to both applicants with all applicable scores listed and identified by applicant if they are in the same household. If they live in different households we send the original to the primary applicant's household and a copy to the co-applicant's household (however we get very few where the applicants live in different households). Too date, and since the requirements went into effect, we have not been criticized by the FDIC and they have reviewed our FCRA/FACT Act policy with a fine tooth comb.

You only list 4 reasons unless the 5th reason would be the number of inquiries are affecting the score. You will find that in 609(f).

If you're going to use one of the exception alternatives, then yes, separate disclosures to each customer in a separate envelope -- even if they live at the same address -- is the new gotcha in the new risk-based pricing requirements. See 222.75(c)(2), it's very explicit. For those who currently deliver the NTHLA with your 3-day package to the primary applicant, this requirement totally screws up this process thank you very much. I think I detect the FTC inserting itself on this one.

For the plain old risk based pricing notice itself, it's just a single notice to both customers if they both live at the same address, but separate notices to each customer if they live at different addresses.

And no, you weren't lucky. The current section 609(g) of the FCRA is silent on all this and there was a lot of confusion which is why they've tightened it all up. And no, joint disclosures weren't prohibited (and still aren't and won't be in the future for those who stick with the old NTHLA).

Turns out the delivery requirement is one of the more complicated aspects of this.

Good luck everyone.

I agree that separate notices must be provided for exception notices (each person gets one with their specific cr score) but I'm not sure they couldn't be mailed together. The reg doesn't mention any expectation of privacy.

Did I miss something? So much to read, so little time.

Look at the example at 222.75(c)(3)(ii). "...Even though the two consumers reside at the same address, the creditor must provide a separate credit score disclosure notice to each of the consumers. Each notice must contain only the credit score of the consumer to whom the notice is provided."

We interpret that to mean separate pieces of paper in separate envelopes, not two separate pieces of paper included in the 3-day package addressed to the primary applicant.

Is it Friday yet?

My response was in reference to the current NHLA/Credit Score Disclosure requirements (which the poster inquired about) not the new 1/1/11 risk base pricing disclosure requirements.

I agree that it has to be 2 sep notices, with each person's score on their own notice. But it doesn't state anything about separate mailings or any right to privacy. The Notice to Home Loan Applicant we currently use provides 2 sep notices, with cr score particular to that person being on their notice.

Yes, Dan I was referring to the current NHLA/Credit score disclosure requirements.
Risk Based Pricing is also something I have been looking at for the future so all input is appreciated!! Thanks everyone!!

okay - I'm confused, a little help please.

My institution does not do risk based pricing. Therefore are we safe in providing the NHLA and Credit Score disclosure jointly if the application is for joint credit? Or should we self impose the 1/1/11 risk based pricing rule of sending separate disclosure, in separate envelopes, to separate or same address?

Help would be appreciated.

I thought the NHLA was replaced by the H-3 disclosure...am I wrong in thinking that? Do we still need to give that disclosure out?

My understanding is: if you are using the exception notices (those who do no risk-based pricing would not be using any of the new notices), then yes the H-3 can replace the NTHLA. Those who do no risk-based pricing would still have need of the NTHLA. Also, those who are not providing the H-3 when issuing an adverse action would need the freestanding NTHLA.

I just noticed that the company we are using for our credit reports (Kroll Factual) actually includes the NHLA disclosure at the bottom of H-3 so we are covered.