/ Register

FCRA loophole to our advantage??

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by KHM, Sep 3, 2002.

  1. Sep 3, 2002 #1
    KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    I disputed an account with Citibank by mistake a few months back, now everytime I pull my report it says "consumer disputes account info, required by FCRA".

    Now I have a 60 day late that shows up on another account, but they for the life of them can't get it straight. Its 60 days late on EXP, not on TU at all, and was reported as paid/never late on EQU, but NOW it says 30 days 1x's late.

    Here's my question, if we send a letter to the OC as well as dispute via the Credit Reporting Agencies and the OC continues to report it negatively, aren't they supposed to mark it as "disputed by consumer, required by FCRA"???

    Citibank is doing it, why shouldn't they all?
    Can we use this loophole? Afterall they ARE the "furnishers of information"
     
  3. Sep 3, 2002 #2
    humblemarc

    humblemarc Well-Known Member

    i have gotten this with my FirstUsa account even before i sent a letter to the OC? I think only certain companies who have been burned already for not putting the notation put it on the account. You could obviously use this against an OC when you send them a verification letter and they do not put this notation on the account, by showing how other companies on your report have done so. And sue for an easy FCRA violation X3 reports.

    humblemarc
     
  4. Sep 4, 2002 #3
    KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    Thanks Marc-
    I agree with you but I want to get some more opinions on it.
    How would we word the letter? I never even disputed with Citibank, just thru the CRA's. I'm sure the "verified" letter from the CRA's would be enough to justify a "dispute". Thats all it took with Citi
     
  5. Sep 4, 2002 #4
    Reshod

    Reshod Well-Known Member

    bump
     
  6. Sep 5, 2002 #5
    KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    bump again.....ANYONE???
     
  7. Sep 5, 2002 #6
    jambe

    jambe Well-Known Member

    I am having trouble seeing this as a loophole. Seems to me the FCRA is very clear about this, though I'm not sure why Citi felt they needed to make the notation.
     
  8. Sep 5, 2002 #7
    Nave

    Nave Well-Known Member

    Kellie see this thread. We never really resolved the issue of whether it directly compells the OC to submit a new notation to the CRA, or whether you have to dispute with the OC and THEN with the CRA in order for the OC to be compelled to mark the account as in-dispute.

    HOWEVER we were all in agreement that the FCRA instructs any furnisher of information (say the OC), that once you dispute the listing with that furnisher, they may not continue to furnish the information to the CRA(s) without a notation of "in-dispute".

    -Peace, Dave
     

Share This Page