The depositions of Experian’s Kimberly Hughes, Dudley Hall and Kathleen Centanni
A reader is suing pro se and asked about the Experian depos, so I posted the transcripts of the depos of Kimberly Hughes, Dudley Hall and Kathleen Centanni taken on 6/13 and 6/14 in Dallas:
http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/803/7610.html
I have only read the beginning of the Hughes depo and it becomes immediately clear why the Experian reporting is so screwed up. Ms. Hughes has no clue what the data on the Expeiran report means.
She thinks the data in the 2 fields in each column of the Experian consumer disclosures is interchangeable. Hopefully I’ll get to post the exhibits so you can see what I’m talking about.
It is really too bad that I’m the ONLY person on the planet who wants to find out how the reported data is utilized by creditors and credit scores. 200,000,000+ people are affected, nobody cares ...
I have always wondered why Fair Isaac doesn’t provide the details about the Experian score factors as with TU and Equifax.
It’s becoming quite obvious that the Experian data is incredibly corrupt, with their own employees NOT knowing which data is supposed to be reported in which field. I have noticed that the Experian scores are often substantially different from the TU and Equifax reports even with the same accounts being reported.
Despite all my research, I do not know how a creditor or scoring software would determine the AGE of a delinquency. Obivously, a chargeoff that occurred last month is much more derogatory than a charge-off 5 years ago.
How is the date of the charge-off determined?
I used to think that it was the date of the status. But, if you pay a charge-off, the status date is changed to the date of payment, which could be years later. Often creditors report a payment history and then you can conclude that the first time they report the charge-off was the date of the charge-off. But what about those occasions when the payment history is NOT reported?
Ms. Hughes stated that the status date can also be the reporting date.
If this is how Experian instructs the furnishers to report, it’s clear why Fair Isaac can’t provide details about the score factors. Consumers would be outraged if they realized that their Experian scores are based on data that makes no sense at all.
It really sucks that there is no interest in these issues.
I don’t exactly have spare time or cash and while I know what to ask in subsequent depos, I’m not sure whether it’s worth it.
The consumer attorneys are too corrupt and/or too stupid to even grasp the concepts of data fields, underwriting and scores.
And the consumers really don’t care. They just want deletions, hoping to be able to finance more crap they don’t need.
That’s great for Experian and the finance industry in general. I have not been motivated to work on this at all. It really floors me that out of 200,000,000 consumers I’m the only one with enough brains and curiosity to have made an effort to find out what the Experian data is supposed to mean and how it affects credit scores.
Some notes on depositions for pro ses:
The Experian depositions - taking depositions
Posted by Christine on 08/08/2006 at 11:09 AM
2003 Suit (appealed, Experian filed credit reports on PACER) • Experian - countless violations • (0) Comments • Permalink
