Ascendant Equity

Ascendant Equity can raise your FICO score and help you get the credit you deserve!  We are credit restoration professionals.  Good credit is just a phone call away!

Improve Your Credit - Improve Your Life!!

Don’t let the credit bureaus get away with keeping you from getting the credit you deserve.  The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires the credit bureaus, collection agencies, and original creditors to follow certain guidelines in how they report information about you!  If they do not follow these rules, we as consumers can force them to correct or remove any information that is outdated, inaccurate, erroneous, or incomplete. At Ascendant Equity, we are ready to fight for your good name and restore your credit profile.  We will work hard to make sure your FICO score accurately reflects your creditworthiness.  Our expertise is proven.  Our honesty and integrity are the hallmarks of our business.

Kirk McClain

Create Your Badge

 ←Please click the white up arrow inside the grey box in bottom right-hand corner of player to access additional videos from You-Tube.

Kirk McClain is a fan of

Delridge Neighborhoods Development Association

What does good credit feel like??

• Visa credit: 270.1 million, down 11 percent (Source: Visa.com)
• Visa debit: 382 million, up 18 percent (Source: Visa.com)
• MasterCard credit: 203 million, down 22 percent (Source: MasterCard.com) 
• MasterCard debit: 125 million, up 1 percent (Source: MasterCard.com)
• American Express credit: 48.9 million, down 9 percent (Source: AmericanExpress.com)
• Discover credit: 54.4 million, down 6 percent (Source: Discover.com)
• TOTAL CREDIT CARDS: 576.4 million
• TOTAL DEBIT CARDS: 507 million

Most general purpose credit cards in circulation in 2008

1. Chase – 119.4 million
2. Citi – 92 million
3. Bank of America – 80.2 million
4. Discover – 48 million
5. American Express – 46.5 million
6. Capital One – 46.3 million
7. HSBC – 38.8 million
8. GE Money – 27.2 million
9. Target – 23.4 million
10. Wells Fargo – 17.3 million

(Original source: Nilson Report, February 2009)

Better take a second look at that credit card bill!

According to the venerable researchers at TransUnion- one of the three major Credit reporting bureas-analyzed information from a data base of 27 million consumer records illustrating consumer credit use and performance.  Nationally, the average credit card debt rose 4.81% compared to the 3rd quarter of 2008 , to $1,694 per houshold.  Yet, credit card offers through the mail and other media continue to increase.  The high rates of debt and delinquencies can easily be attributed to the current economic crisis; job losses, lay-offs, mortgage foreclosures, etc.. No doubt the current White House administration is aware of these dismal and downright scary numbers.  As part of a comprehensive financial reform package,  President Obama recently signed into law the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act.  Here is the official White House Press release:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                          May 22, 2009

FACT SHEET: REFORMS TO PROTECT AMERICAN CREDIT CARD HOLDERS
President Obama signs Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act

WASHINGTON – Today, President Obama signs the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009, marking a turning point for American consumers and ending the days of unfair rate hikes and hidden fees.

Americans need a healthy flow of credit in our economy, but for too long credit card contracts and practices have been unfairly and deceptively complicated, often leading consumers to pay more than they reasonably expect.  Every year, Americans pay around $15 billion in penalty fees.  Nearly 80 percent of American families have a credit card, and 44 percent of families carry a balance on their credit cards.  To tackle these problems, the Administration moved swiftly with the Congress to enact reforms.

“With this new law, consumers will have the strong and reliable protections they deserve.  We will continue to press for reform that is built on transparency, accountability, and mutual responsibility – values fundamental to the new foundation we seek to build for our economy,” President Obama said.

In the Senate and throughout the campaign, President Obama called for measures to strengthen consumer protection in the credit card market.  This legislation was made possible by the leadership of Chairman Frank and Representatives Maloney and Gutierrez in the House, and Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member Shelby and Senator Levin in the Senate.  It builds on the strong first step taken by the Federal Reserve toward improving disclosures and ending unfair practices.
 

Principles for Long-term Credit Card Reform

• First, there have to be strong and reliable protections for consumers.
• Second, all the forms and statements that credit card companies send out have to have plain language that is in plain sight.   
• Third, we have to make sure that people can shop for a credit card that meets their needs without fear of being taken advantage of.  
• Finally, we need more accountability in the system, so that we can hold those responsible who do engage in deceptive practices that hurt families and consumers. 

The Administration applauds the legislative efforts of both the House and the Senate.  By working closely together, the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee were able quickly to enact strong protections that the President signs into law today.  Below we highlight the critical elements of reform in this new law:

• Bans Unfair Rate Increases
• Prevents Unfair Fee Traps
• Plain Sight /Plain Language Disclosures
• Accountability
• Protections for Students and Young People

Key Elements of the Credit  CARD Act of 2009

Bans Unfair Rate Increases: Financial institutions will no longer raise rates unfairly, and consumers will have confidence that the interest rates on their existing balances will not be hiked. 

• Bans Retroactive Rate Increases: Bans rate increases on existing balances due to “any time, any reason” or “universal default” and severely restricts retroactive rate increases due to late payment.
• First Year Protection: Contract terms must be clearly spelled out and stable for the entirety of the first year.  Firms may continue to offer promotional rates with new accounts or during the life of an account, but these rates must be clearly disclosed and last at least 6 months.

Bans Unfair Fee Traps:

• Ends Late Fee Traps: Institutions will have to give card holders a reasonable time to pay the monthly bill – at least 21 calendar days from time of mailing.  The act also ends late fee traps such as weekend deadlines, due dates that change each month, and deadlines that fall in the middle of the day.
• Enforces Fair Interest Calculation: Credit card companies will be required to apply excess payments to the highest interest balance first, as consumers expect them to do.  The act also ends the confusing and unfair practice by which issuers use the balance in a previous month to calculate interest charges on the current month, so called “double-cycle” billing.
• Requires Opt-In to Over-Limit Fees: Consumers will find it easier to avoid over-limit fees because institutions will have to obtain a consumer’s permission to process transactions that would place the account over the limit.
• Restrains Unfair Sub-Prime Fees: Fees on subprime, low-limit credit cards will be substantially restricted.
• Limits Fees on Gift and Stored Value Cards: The act enhances disclosure on fees for gift and stored value cards and restricts inactivity fees unless the card has been inactive for at least 12 months.

Plain Sight /Plain Language Disclosures: Credit card contract terms will be disclosed in language that consumers can see and understand so they can avoid unnecessary costs and manage their finances.

• Plain Language in Plain Sight:  Creditors will give consumers clear disclosures of account terms before consumers open an account, and clear statements of the activity on consumers’ accounts afterwards.  For example, pre-opening disclosures will highlight fees consumers may be charged and periodic statements will conspicuously display fees they have paid in the current month and the year to date as well as the reasons for those fees.  These disclosures will help consumers make informed choices about using the right financial products and managing their own financial needs.  Model disclosures will be updated regularly based on reviews of the market, empirical research, and testing with consumers to ensure that disclosures remain clear, useful, and relevant.
• Real Information about the Financial Consequences of Decisions: Issuers will be required to show the consequences to consumers of their credit decisions. 
  • Issuers will need to display on periodic statements how long it would take to pay off the existing balance – and the total interest cost – if the consumer paid only the minimum due.
  • Issuers will also have to display the payment amount and total interest cost to pay off the existing balance in 36 months.

Accountability: The act will help ensure accountability from both credit card issuers and regulators who are responsible for preventing unfair practices and enforcing protections.

• Public posting of credit card contracts:  Today credit card contracts are usually available only in hard copy and not in plain language. Now issuers will be required to make contracts available on the Internet in a usable format.  Regulators and consumer advocates will be better able to monitor changes in credit card terms and evaluate whether current disclosures and protections are adequate.
• Holds regulators accountable to enforce the law:  Regulators will be required to report annually to the Congress on their enforcement of credit card protections
• Holds regulators accountable to keep protections current:
  • Regulators will be required to request public input on trends in the credit card market and potential consumer protection issues on a biennial basis to determine what new regulations or disclosures might be needed.
  • Regulators will be required either to update the applicable rules, or to publish findings if they deem further regulation unnecessary.
     

• Increases penalties:  Card issuers that violate these new restrictions will face significantly higher penalties than under current law, which should make violations less likely in the first place.

Cleans Up Credit Card Practices For Young People at Universities.  The act contains new protections for college students and young adults, including a requirement that card issuers and universities disclose agreements with respect to the marketing or distribution of credit cards to students.

So, with rising variable rates, deferred interest plans that leave the consumer worse off than when they initially accepted the card, and bogus advance notice rules, the consumer is once again fleeced and put out to air-dry in a cold market place.  The best defense is to control how many cards you have in your wallet, control your spending, and get educated BY YOUR CREDIT CARD ISSUER regarding the small print of your credit card aggreement.  It will save you a lot of money in the long run.

There have been many articles written about the FCRA and how it can be used to help consumers repair their damaged credit files.  One Google search will turn up literally hundreds of articles on the subject.  Much of the information is either too difficult to understand, or is woefully incomplete.  Many of the authors of such articles have an ulterior motive; give the reader a tid-bit of information designed to gently lead them to their website where they then offer to give the reader the “whole story” for a price, or solicit other costly credit repair services. 

While I don’t necessarily blame them for trying to make a buck, I like other consumers of credit repair information would like to simply get the whole story without all the underhanded marketing tactics that are so abundant on the Internet.  I promise all of my readers that the information in my posts is “pure” and without strings attached!!  Just knowledge, no fat, no bad information, and no marketing!  While I do own and run a credit repair agency, the information I post is for CONSUMPTION, not to market my credit repair services.

By its very name, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act places new emphasis on accuracy of information in consumer reports. Two FACTA sections aim to improve the accuracy and integrity of information as well as give consumers a new right to dispute data included in reports directly with the company that furnished it. These sections are:

Accuracy guidelines for financial institutions and creditors that furnish information to credit bureaus. (FACTA §312(a), FCRA §623(e)(1)). Ability of consumers to dispute information with companies that report to credit bureaus. (FACTA §312(c), FCRA §623(a)(8)).

Like other FACTA sections, the accuracy and dispute sections call for rules to be adopted by the federal banking agency and the FTC. On March 22, 2006, the agencies jointly issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), a means of gathering information prior to a rule proposal. The ANPR can be viewed at www.ftc.gov/os/fedreg/2006/march/060322accuratecredittrans.pdf Public comments received in response to the ANPR can be viewed at www.ftc.gov/os/comments/FACTA-furnishers/index.shtm

 While case law has established for the past few years that the Original Creditor (O.C.) can be held liable for reporting inaccurate information (Richardson vs. Fleet, Nelson vs. Chase Manhattan ), the FACTA legislation passed recently allows the consumer to go directly to the
original creditor and dispute information which the original creditor (called the information furnisher) in the FCRA, has supplied to the credit bureaus.  However before disputing with the original creditor, the CONSUMER MUST HAVE DISPUTED WITH THE CREDIT BUREAUS first. Following this step is crucial.

Again, when you write the Original creditor, you are asking for an INVESTIGATION, not verification. Under the laws, the OC’s are not required to verify an account, only to conduct an investigation. If you want to get results, you must invoke the right laws.   O.C.’s are NOT required by law to “verify” anything.  Basically, you can dispute information placed on your credit report by an O.C. in the same way as you would with a credit bureau.   An original creditor must:

1. Conduct an investigation of the dispute
2. Review all information provided by the consumer relating to the dispute
3. Respond within 30 days to the investigation
4. If the information is inaccurate, they must notify the credit bureaus of the mistake and         tell the credit bureau to correct it.

Some of you might remember the very popular slogan used by one of the major parcel delivery services: “We move at the speed of Business”  Well, that slogan was not only true, but it was also prophetic.  Large companies in the US are constantly buying each other out, merging with larger companies, and selling parts of their departments to vendor companies.  This means that information can and does get lost in “translation.”  As anyone who has ever taken an economics course knows, US companies are more concerned with profits than complaints. 

It has been my experience as a credit repair professional that most companies (original creditors) do not adequately staff their dispute resolution departments until they are facing a class-action type lawsuit.  That’s when the lawyers are brought in to clean things up and resolve whatever dispute occurred through litigation.  One consumer complaint is rarely given the attention it deserves because of the simple, yet profound fact that the man-hours to resolve every complaint cannot be justified in a profit-driven environment.  Bottom line: they don’t keep their records very well.  In fact, most credit card companies only keep records for 13-18 months!   Fortunately for consumers, the FACT-ACT now requires any issuer of credit to validate all information it reports to the three major credit bureaus.  Section 623 (a) (8) D) of FACTA which is titled: SUBMITTING A NOTICE OF DISPUTE states:

• A consumer who seeks to dispute the accuracy of information shall provide a dispute notice (letter) directly to such person at the address specified by the person for such notices that:
• identifies the specific information that is being disputed
• explains the basis of the dispute, and
• includes all supporting documentation required by the furnisher (original creditor) to substantiate the basis of the dispute.

(E) DUTY OF PERSON AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE OF DISPUTE- After receiving a notice of dispute from a consumer pursuant to subparagraph (D),

the person that provided the information in dispute to a consumer reporting agency shall–

(i) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;

(ii) review all relevant information provided by the consumer with the notice;

(iii) complete such person’s investigation of the dispute and report the results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) within which a consumer reporting agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had elected to dispute the information under that section; and

(iv) if the investigation finds that the information reported was inaccurate, promptly notify each consumer reporting agency to which the person  furnished the inaccurate information of that determination and provide to the agency any correction to that information that is necessary to make the information provided by the person accurate.

§ 623. (b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute.

(1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall

(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;

(B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i];

(C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency;

(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis; and

(E) if an item of information disputed by a consumer is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1),

for purposes of reporting to a consumer reporting agency only, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation promptly –

(i) modify that item of information;

(ii) delete that item of information; or

(iii) permanently block the reporting of that item of information.

I won’t provide an interpretation here because that is as straight-forward as it gets.  You can call up (or write) your credit card company, or any “furnisher” of credit and demand that they investigate your account for inaccuracies and by law they must comply or be found liable in a court of law.  Remember what I wrote above, that the consumer must first dispute with the credit bureaus BEFORE they dispute with the original creditor.  Why?  Because when you dispute the debt with credit bureaus first, they will almost always verify the debt as legit and accurate (they are supposed to do this by contacting the above mentioned original creditor, but in most cases they don’t).  When the debt is verified by the bureaus you then have standing to dispute with the original creditor who then will be liable for verifying a debt with the credit bureaus, but did not (could not) verify it with you - proving no investigation ever occurred!!  When you write your dispute letter threatening to sue for damages they will immediately stop reporting the debt to the credit bureaus, who then in turn must delete it from your credit file.

This post is for all of you who have ever considered using a credit repair organization to improve your credit or raise your FICO score.   

The CROA was enacted in 1996 by Presidential order.   I’ll provide a link to the entire text of the Act later in this post. 

The Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CROA”) is not actually an Act, it is actually Title IV of The Consumer Credit Protection Act.  Section 401 states, however, it can be referred to as “Credit Repair Organizations Act”.

Everyone knows how important it is in these current economic times to maintain a good credit rating.  Some are able to restore their own credit; others might need to seek the help of a credit repair professional. As I have said in previous posts, a casual internet search for “credit repair” will yield literally hundreds of hits.  Many of these organizations are simply not reputable and have further damaged the credit of many innocent and uneducated consumers.

The Credit Repair Organizations Act was created to ensure that credit repair organization conduct business in a manner that is fair and transparent so prospective buyers of credit repair services can make informed decisions based upon a well regulated set of rules. The CROA protects the average citizen seeking credit repair services from unfair and deceptive business practices. Here are the main protections it provides:

• Prohibited practices
• Required disclosures
• Contract requirements
• Liability
• Penalties for non-compliance
• Procedure to report non-compliance

The Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) has clearly enumerates your rights as a consumer. Of particular importance is the requirement that you be given a copy of your rights before you sign any legal contract with an organization. Your contract must be in writing, and must clearly spell out all your rights and obligations. Once you know your rights, it then becomes your responsibility to make an informed decision.  It’s similar to buying a vehicle; never make a decision to purchase credit repair services based upon emotion, or what you might hear in a phone conversation or website teaser advertisement.  Get everything in writing and ask questions until you satisfied.  Don’t be afraid to put on a little pressure by stating your skepticism.  If they want your business they will be up front with you.

One of most egregious violations that credit repair organization commit is the making of false or misleading claims about what they are capable of.  Some claims are outright illegal, such as the ability to provide clients with a “brand new” credit file.  Other claims include the promise to raise your score 100-200 points in a matter of weeks or days.  This is just plain impossible. If you see or hear anything even similar to that promise coming from a credit repair organization avoid them like the plague because they are simply out to steal your money.  Disclosure Required.–

Here the specific points that must be addressed clearly in a contract with a credit repair company:

• The company’s name
• Company’s address
• Contact information
• Total cost of services
• A detailed description of the services and fees
• The time frame for completion of work
• Any guarantees they may offer

A credit repair company must perform the work before you are required to pay them, except for a set up fee.  You also have a three-day buyer’s remorse period.  Just make sure you know the procedure as it (should be) stated in the contract. Credit repair companies are also prohibited from performing any services on your behalf until you have signed a written contract and you have given them Limited Power of Attorney.  Also, there can be no cancellation fees attached listed in the contract.

Financial problems can sometimes be so severe that it’s difficult not to take the first company that sounds like they can help you.  Don’t give in to that tendency if you can help it.  The more due diligence you perform, the more you will be protected with that knowledge. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/croa/croa.shtm

The Least Sophisticated Consumer???

The Least Sophisticated Consumer

(Debt Collectors deceptive practices)

Debt collection companies sometimes use questionable practices when attempting to collect a debt.  For example, they sometimes send “official” looking letters to consumers that appear to be of a legal nature. They send these types of documents in order to employ a measure of intimidation.  For most consumers, receiving a letter that appears to be from a law firm can be quite intimidating because, as whole, most people don’t know what legal documents look like.  One collection agency even went so far as to use their subcontracted law firm’s letterhead without their permission to send debt collection letters to coerce a potential target to pay a debt.  This practice is illegal.  See article: Collection Attorneys – Do NOT pimp out your letterhead to your collection agency clients

How do you know when you have received a dunning letter that might fall under the deception standard of the FDCPA?  “When considering whether there is deception in debt collection communications, the courts apply an objective standard of deception.  It is known as the “least sophisticated” or “unsophisticated” consumer or debtor standard.  There is no requirement of proof of actual deception of the consumer who files a FDCPA claim to establish debt collector liability.  The courts have rejected a “reasonable consumer” standard in favor of the “least sophisticated consumer.”  Although the standard is objective, the “least sophisticated consumer” standard is lower than examining whether a debt collection communication would deceive or mislead a reasonable debtor.  The question is not whether the plaintiff consumer was deceived or misled but rather whether an unsophisticated consumer would have been misled.  Courts have reasoned that the purpose for the lower standard is to ensure that the FDCPA protects all consumers…from the gullible to the shrewd” says Michigan Lawyer Gary Nitzkin.

Deceptive Statements or Threats are Common FDCPA Violations

The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) provides that “[a] debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. .”. 15 U.S.C. 1692e. Yet deceptive threats are among the most common violations of the FDCPA.

The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act:

Gary D. Nitzkin, an attorney in Southfield, Michigan says this about the least sophisticated consumer rule:

The FDCPA uses the “least sophisticated consumer” standard to determine whether something is confusing or misleading. This is a very low standard and hence, it’s very easy to violate.  I am amazed at collection agencies that try to get creative with the collection letters. After all, the FDCPA provides safe harbor language to include in a demand letter. When collection agencies avoid this safe harbor, they usually get Pearl Harbored. Take, for instance,

the case of McMillan v Collection Professionals recently decided by the 7th Circuit Court of appeals. Collection Professionals was hired to collect on a bounced check. Instead of using the safe harbor language of the FDCPA, they stated in their demand letter “You are either honest or dishonest you cannot be both,” and that the “injustice of permitting this account to become past due and then ignoring all requests for payment, casts a doubt of good intention.” Ms. McMillian sued the collection agency for breach of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, claiming that the letter used false or deceptive means to collect a debt. The Illinois District Court dismissed her claim while the Court of Appeals reinstated it. The Court of Appeals reminds us that the standard used to determine whether a letter is false or misleading is whether the least sophisticated consumer would be misled. In law, we usually look to the “prudent person” standard. That is, what would a reasonably prudent person do and/or believe. In the context of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the law looks to the “lease sophisticated consumer.”

According to some who share their experiences on popular credit repair blogs, a consumer should “dumb down” all of their written correspondence with a collection agency or credit bureau to ensure inclusion under the least sophisticated consumer standard in the FDCPA should their complaint ever go before a judge.  In one popular blog, I read that one credit repair agency went so far as to write their dispute letters in colored crayon!!  There are hundreds of decisions under the FDCPA considering the deceptiveness of statements in dunning letters, and nearly all of the decisions are favorable to the consumer advancing the claim. See National Consumer Law Center, Fair Debt Collection Appx.H.2.4. (Boston: NCLC 1991 and Supp.)  Under this standard, it is apparently not necessary to actually intend to deceive, only that the capacity to deceive is apparent.  Thus, it also appears that the more unsophisticated a consumer, the better chance they have of successfully litigating their claim under this provision. 

For an exhaustive and comprehensive look at this provision, please reference A Primer on Debt Collection Deception Law on Lectlaw.com.

Everyone  interested in the politics of the credit industry needs to read and know about these hearings.  This is where the rubber meets the road in terms of public policy regarding regulating the credit industry!!  Click on the link below to open the document.  There is so much good information here I will just let you read it for yourselves!!    Testimony before the COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICESSUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND CONSUMER CREDIT

Over the past five years there has been quite a bit of litigation regarding consumers not having access to the credit bureaus.  Until recently, it was pretty much a lost cause trying to speak to a real person about anything with regard to your credit report.  Thanks to that above mentioned litigation, it is now possible to call them and get a real person on the phone.  I would suggest doing this when all else fails.   Also, nothing can replace an organized method of communication with the credit bureaus.  Be prepared to state your case with backup documents if necessary.  Whatever communication you have with them always remember to document EVERTHING.  This will help you stay organized, and will give you proof if things get ugly and you have take them to court.  I have listed the numbers to call to get a human being to speak with you for each bureau:

Experian-  1-714-830-7000   

Equifax -       866-640-2273     (choose option 3 and patiently wait for a human)

TransUnion – 1800-916-8800

How to deal with credit agencies-letters

Download our Credit Repair Seminar BrochureWhat is Debt Validation and does it actually work?

Do you know your Credit Score?

Time limitations