So, you disagree with Bonnie's approach?

No. It is just not required by the FCRA. I am trying to stick to the original issue "do we disclose the use of the CR every time we pull one?" The answer is No. Disclose only if it is used adversely against the applicant.

Loan officers at my bank pull a new credit report when we receive a request for credit. In most instances, the report is on our desk with the application before we ever see the customer. I think that is probably why Shirley's scenario included the credit report.

zaibatsu (Geez! What is your name?)

You wrote:
Like you said--if there was nothing derogatory in the credit report, but it was denied for other reasons, why would Shirley order the credit report in the first place?

When an individual applies for a loan, a credit report is obtained regardless of information submitted on the application or even regardless of the fact that you know you're going to have to deny the credit based on something outside what might be on the credit report. ECOA allows lenders to deny a loan request but issue a counteroffer. A lender would NOT want to issue a counteroffer without first inspecting the applicant's credit report.

Anonymous, you wrote:
Do you feel the same when the cutting remark is made supposedly out of your earshot, but you hear it?

When I overhear a cutting remark not meant for me to hear, I laugh, walk away, and then NEVER EVER GIVE THAT PERSON THE TIME OF DAY AS LONG AS THEY LIVE!! Seriously, I find some underhanded way to address the comment........

This is all hurting my head:

Shirley says that she pulls credit reports when she receives an application.

I then asked: "What if a loan officer has sufficient information to deny the application without having looked at the credit report?"

David then answers: "If you have sufficient info to deny before looking at the credit report, why did you order a credit report? Do you just automatically order them (a waste of money in this case)?"

So, who is right, Shirley or David? Should I pull a credit report as a matter of course upon receipt of an application or is it a waste of money.

____________________________________________________

On another discussion (Bonnie's method):

Bonnie says: "If the credit report didn't affect our decision, we still disclose that one was pulled. In another post she says: "the reason we put the box "We pulled a credit report but it was not a factor was that some people ASSUMED that if you didn't notify them that you pulled a credit report, then you must not have pulled one."

So I asked David: So, you disagree with Bonnie's approach?

David answered: No. It is just not required by the FCRA. I am trying to stick to the original issue "do we disclose the use of the CR every time we pull one?" The answer is No. Disclose only if it is used adversely against the applicant.


So David must disagree with Bonnie's approach, right?

BOL Rule of Thumb:

In any string consisting of more than 15 responses, one should not assume a connection between the original posting and the 15th and subsequent responses.

I think David takes the same position I do on Bonnie's approach -- no disclosure is necessary; the FCRA adverse action notice is definitely not appropriate; and Bonnie's notice, while not required, is an accurate statement of what transpired. (I think it's also a good idea.)

I think that the communication between Z and myself has gotten muddy. Thanks for that humorous but accurate statement John. Mary Beth said exactly what I have been saying (or trying to say). I think that I have said all that I can (or at least want to) about this topic.

zaibatsu - I don't think David disagrees with my procedure, he's just saying it's not required. And he's right, it's not required by any regulation of which I am aware. It's just something we started after getting a rash of disgruntled customers who complained they didn't know we had pulled their credit report.

As long as David won't cite me for a violation of FCRA - we is cool!

I guess what David is saying is that to send the disclosure when you did not base the decision on the report would be a violation as an overdisclosure, but to send a notice that you pulled their credit report, but that it did not weigh in at all in your adverse action, is A-O-K.

I promise this is my last post on this. I will stop stirring the pot on this one...wonder what's going on in the Security forum....

Whew! You guys have been busy since I was gone. To those who came to my defense, thank you, to those who criticized me, thank you. That is what this forum and exchange is all about.

Did I mean to be personally critical with my comment, no. I tried to word that in such as way as to not attack any one person. Making light of the scenario, I wanted to point out that just because you read it online, regardless of the source, it doesn't mean it is true and correct. It was one person's opinion. We all make mistakes and some people will view my opinion as wrong. The author of that article likely does. I'd venture to say some regulators would agree with one opinion, some with another, and some wouldn't care either way unless they saw a glaring violation.

Lets face it, regulations are not alway black and white. There is room for opinion and we each have our own. The trick is trying to get everyone's opinions the same. That is why we have commentaries. In this case though, we don't have that and opinions is what we'll rely on.

To zaibatsu, yes, pulling credit reports automatically is a waste of money. Especially if they are not used. But we, as an example, process applications on an assembly line process. When they get to the decision maker, all the data has to be there. They are not triaged first so early processing does not eliminate the glaring denials. The decision maker makes the loan decision. He/She does not want to delay the decision by sending it back for more info. By processing them in this way, decisions are made faster and cheaper because fewer people are needed for a large quantity of apps.

I'll stop now since this thread is long enough for me.