My re-direct to my examiner:
I'm sorry to keep bothering you on this, but the deadline is soon approaching and there is just too much conflicting information out there.
I got the following from one of my compliance bulletin boards -
On November 10, 2004, David Lafleur, CRCM, FDIC Policy Analyst-Compliance DSC - Washington, DC responded to my question as to if we had to provide a negative notice to each borrower if they were at the same address, or even to each borrower if they had different addresses. David responded, "To answer your question, only one negative notice needs to be sent. We've been advising financial institutions to send it however they'd send a statement or late notice, so if those items go to both names, but to the primary address, that's how this notice should work. So in your case, it could be included with the bill that's sent to the primary borrower."
It appears to contradict the answer you got from Chicago. Would you please try to clarify, or please give me someone's telephone number in Chicago or D.C. that I could talk to? I really don't want to put the bank through the expense of having to send separate notices if it is not required. But, I also want to make sure the bank is compliant.
If it will help, you might refer to 217(C)(i). This section allows the notice to be included with the past due notice - and because the industry standard is to just send one past due notice to the customers is where I think the reasoning that only one notice is compliant is coming from. I have to admit, that is my reasoning.
Her reply which was just received. Dan, you are not bothering me. As you are well aware, there are several interpretations - my sources leaned toward sending a notice to all those to whom adverse information will be reported; however, David's guidance is what I will go with, and so should you.
Good job!
I think I'll buy myself a double shot of Crown after work.
Previous Thread
Index