(flicking sound) marc (swaying begins), LOL D) Automated reinvestigation system. Any consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis SHALL implement an automated system through which furnishers of information to that consumer reporting agency MAY report the results of a reinvestigation that finds incomplete or inaccurate information in a consumer's file to other such consumer reporting agencies. The CRA's shall implement the system but the information furnishers don't have to use it :-( There's another thread somewhere that talks about the CRA umbrella group, I'll find it for ya. Anyway that's section 611, Procedure in case of disputed accuracy. When the consumer is reporting the dispute directly to the CRA. However, under section 623, Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies. In response to a dispute, the information furnishers themselves are required to: 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. The CRA's are required to have a system, the furnishers MAY use it, but either way, they still have to correct incomplete or inaccurate results with all CRA's that they reported to. Sassy Edit: Here's the other link: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?threadid=32210
Yea,Sassy, thanks for the link. I'm thinking that this violation plus failure to put a tradeline in dispute would be more than enough to sue for. Plus, if enough people sued under these two laws, maybe, just maybe, the CRA's would be more likely to follow those laws, instead of COMPLETELY blowing them off. humblemarc p.s. pssst, we have to whisper when we sing on other threads, so as to not upset anyone. ;-)
No, it does NOT mean what you think it means. Read it again. In layman's terms: If a CRA (a) maintains CONSUMER information and (b) operates at a NATIONAL level, then it must provide an automated system that a CREDITOR can - but does not HAVE to - use -- and that the purpose of this automated system is for the CREDITOR (not the CRA) to report the results of any reinvestigation to the other national CRAs. Basically, the Federal government wanted to make sure that it would be easy for a creditor to update a consumer's file at any other (national) bureau IF the creditor chose to do so. The "furnisher" in the statement "... furnishers of information to that consumer reporting agency may report the results ..." is a creditor, not a CRA. And the word MAY makes it optional for the creditor to utilize this 'automated system', not mandatory. It is mandatory that the CRA provide the automated system, but it's optional for a creditor to use it. This does NOT mandate that a CRA must "share" information with another CRA.
How, then, do we reconcile the fact that one account may be reported a different way by each CRA? I have had SOOOOO many instances of an OC swearing that they reported it correctly, it is correct in their system, they put it in writing, etc etc. Yet it is still reported 3 different ways. This would tell me that they are not necessarily utilizing the input from the creditors. Just a thought......
A CRA can not/does not just arbitrarily generate activity for your account(s). Somewhere along the line, somebody is punching a keyboard or some system is crunching data to forward to a CRA. Simple human error while performing data entry can be a big culprit. I am a computer programmer -- programming errors in a creditor's bean counting system can cause one set of data to go one place, and different data elsewhere. Add in the potential for the CRA's system to be mis-programmed, and there are endless possibilities relative to WHY you have the "same" account reported differently at each bureau. Saying "automated system" is vague -- it doesn't give us enough information to know whether or not that means a single entry point (one input screen, for example) for multiple CRA's files, or simply a single point of entry (with an input screen for each CRA) to facilitate the access to each CRA's system itself. My point was not technical in nature. I was simply stating that the section quoted did NOT state that the CRA's were required to "share" data. They are separate and independent companies - Ford vs. GM -- they don't SHARE their products (data). They are, however, required to meet certain Federal standards, whether is the FCRA (credit reporting) or CAFE (fuel economy) standards.
I ended up doing this for my DH, they did nothing with it, other than just start another investigation, however their results were better, his chargeoff ended up deleted. For me, it was fixed "on its own". Someone had said a paid charge off is a paid chargeoff , and asked the difference between an R5 and R9, well when my R9 was changed to an R5 (which IS better than an R9) my score jumped 20 or so points.
