My Take on "Operation Clean Sweep" The FTC is not telling
the whole story
Released
on: October 27, 2008, 4:27 am
Press
Release Author: Revolution
Credit Solutions Inc.
Industry:
Financial
Press
Release Summary: I just watched the Webcast from the FTC on "Operation
Clean Sweep" and I cant help but wonder who is really behind
this?
Press
Release Body: For all of you who have not seen this I recommend
checking it out and then reading this release. It can be found
at the FTC's website at:
http://htc-01.media.globix.net/COMP008760MOD1/ftc_web/FTCindex.html#Oct_23press_08
Let me start by saying that I agree that a company that lies to
a consumer, or does not perform services at all, should be held
responsible and liable for their actions. However to attack an
entire industry based on a few "Bad Apples" is wrong
and illegal see the below legal definition of libel.
An
untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through
broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing
in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the
injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made
the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation, as is slander
(an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in
writing or broadcast through the media).
Now tell me if it’s just
me, or is the FTC is on a "Witch Hunt"?
Before
we answer that question lets take a few points from the FTC's
comments and how they compare to the legal facts.
1)
Lydia Parnes repeatedly mentions that "No company can legally
remove accurate and timely information from a credit report"
While
Lydia Parnes is correct She fails to provide a complete explanation
that according to the FCRA a consumer or company hired by a consumer
may have unverifiable information removed. Please read the below
taken from Section 611 5 A of the FCRA
(5) Treatment of Inaccurate or Unverifiable Information
(A) In general. If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph
(1) of any information disputed by a consumer, an item of the
information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot
be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall–(i) promptly
delete that item of information from the file of the consumer,
or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the
results of the investigation;
2)
Lydia Parnes repeatedly mentions that "Negative information
can be reported for up to seven years, and some Bankruptcies can
be reported for up to ten years."
While
Lydia Parnes is again correct these items "can" be reported
for those periods of time. However no where in the FCRA does it
stipulate that they "must" be reported for those periods
of time. As a matter of fact no where in the FCRA does it state
that any information must be reported ever. In the United States
of America the credit reporting system is voluntary.
3)
Lydia Parnes now presents a Mr. Daniel Duke from Texas. Daniel
proceeds to tell his tale of woe, It is filled with inconsistencies
and libel. Daniel Duke first states that he called a Credit Repair
company and they offered to provide service for the amount of
$1200. Daniel now says so I sent them $900. Does anyone else see
the problem here? Daniel is upset some time later when the company
will not release the work because $300 is still due. Daniel also
says in his comments that Mortgage Brokers and Banks are no help
but he closes his statement with "So even your Mortgage Broker
will help you allot" Daniel Duke also commits libel by making
a statement that "Every one of those are probably crooks"
Referring to the 10,000 Credit Repair companies that his bank
told him existed in the State of Texas.
While
we sympathize with any consumer that has been victimized, We feel
that Lydia Parnes and the FTC purposely allowed this consumer
to publicly stone an entire industry based on his opinions. What
Daniel Duke, Lydia Parnes, and the FTC failed to discuss were
the facts surrounding Daniel Duke's complaint. Did the company
provide Mr. Duke with a contract? What services did the company
offer to provide Mr. Duke? And most importantly, what were Mr.
Dukes responsibilities under the contract? We already know that
according to Mr. Duke he only sent in a partial payment to the
company. Did Mr. Duke not do something else on his part to cause
the failure of the company’s credit repair efforts? (We
are not taking sides however if you are going to make allegations
publicly you should provide facts)
4)
Lydia Parnes now offers to take questions, A woman from Oklahoma
calls in that is in the Credit Repair business, asking how she
can separate her company from the "Bad Companies", and
if there is any resource available that the FTC can recommend,
for consumers to find reputable Credit Repair Companies. Lydia
Parnes says "The FTC does not endorse any Credit Repair company
or any other Type of Company for that matter" and immediately
after saying that Lydia Parnes endorses Not for Profit Credit
Counseling companies. And then Lydia Parnes allows Mr. Daniel
Duke an angry consumer with what appears to be an agenda in my
opinion jump in to say: "Most of us in the real world have
real jobs that we do for a living. And that’s why I think
that Non profitable corporations are the only way to go. They
are not doing it because that's their source of livelihood. How
up front and honest and how fair to the consumers can you be when
that’s your money to make money off them. So I’m playing
the Devil's advocate if your charging somebody to help them you’re
probably more interested in yourself than you are helping them."
In
my opinion Lydia Parnes and the FTC allowed Mr. Daniel Duke to
not only commit libel against every legitimate credit repair company
but every other legitimate business in the United States of America
that works for a profit.
5)
Lydia Parnes continues to take questions from callers but continues
to avoid any topic that may present a positive image of Credit
Repair companies.
In
closing may I suggest to Lydia Parnes, the FTC, and Mr. Daniel
Duke who clearly stated that negative items in his report were
not accurate, A new plan "Operation Accurate Credit Report"
because after all the real culprit in this whole mess plaguing
or Nation are these so called "Big Three" Credit Reporting
Agencies. It’s no big secret that it is the Credit Reporting
Agency that is responsible for maintaining accurate and verifiable
reports for each consumer. See section 607 (b) of the FCRA:
(b)
Accuracy of report. Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares
a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure
maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual
about whom the report relates.
Now
according to the US PIRG (US Public Interest Research Group) 79%
of all Credit Reports contain errors see it here:
http://static.uspirg.org/usp.asp?id2=13649&id3=USPIRG
The
fact is that every day legitimate credit repair companies have
already launched "Operation Accurate Credit Report"
by performing the valuable service to consumers that even though
can do it for themselves do not possess the knowledge to be successful.
These companies help the client Dispute Inaccurate, outdated,
and unverifiable information. The amount of red tape these consumers
must go through to get this done often causes them to give up.
A legitimate credit repair company understands the process and
knows what steps are required. In addition to Dispute services
legitimate companies provide credit education to consumers, and
advice on adding positive credit to the consumers file.
For
more information on Credit
Repair visit us at http://www.RevolutionCreditSolutions.com
Web
Site: http://www.revolutioncreditsolutions.com
Contact
Details: Revolution Credit Solutions Inc.
500 N Michigan Ave
Suite 300
Chicago IL 60611
1-888-852-0005
2025
