Slowyne brings up a great issue, one of my personal favorites, the re-insertion of previously "deleted" information. I felt this one needed it's own thread. When information is "deleted" from your CR, the CRA's are required to issue a notice, within 5 days, to tell you this has occurred. They must ALSO obtain, prior to the re-insertion, a "certification" from the DF that the info. is in fact correct. But notice the law says "deleted" information. Lets take a look at Slowynes delimna, he asks: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=334948#post334948 Slowyne called EQ. about info. which was "deleted". Naturally we assume he's talking about info. "deleted" as a result of a dispute. The point here is, he doesn't say that. Slowyne has been a member for awhile but has a limited number of posts, (not that that's a problem). Is it possible he's is confusing "deleted" info. from info which is simply no longer present, (for whatever other reason this may happen, and there are many). The 5 day notice and certification requirement is in § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] This general section heading is specific. It has to do with info. which has been disputed. Just because info. is no longer present on your report, does that mean it is "deleted"? NO - "deleted" information is that which is no longer present BECAUSE you disputed it. Slowyne does not articulate whether or not he disputed it, so we need to be careful about how we advise him. Quite naturally the CRA employees JUMP, with both feet, on this ambiguity and inform us that ALL info. that finds it's way back onto our report is not their fault. It's ALWAYS the fault of the DF. LOL But when an item is deleted, it's supposed to be suppressed. Thereby setting the system to avoid it's re-insertion, regardless of whether or not the info. comes in again from the DF's monthly magnetic tape updates. Thus complying with: § 607. Compliance procedures [15 U.S.C. § 1681e] (a) Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations § 611 (b) says: "If any information is deleted from a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph (A)" HMMM ... "pursuant to subparagraph (A)" Fine, so lets look at subparagraph "A": § 611 (A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer. We see then, that in order for (B) to apply we must comply with subparagraph (A). YOU MUST DISPUTE THE INFORMATION BEFORE IT JOINS THE "DELETED" CATEGORY AND THE 5 DAY NOTICE AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT KICKS IN. In this respect Slowynes CRA employee was correct. We will not have a case if we sued a CRA for not sending the 5 day notice and having the certification over info. which has been "withdrawn", (for lack of a better word) but not "deleted". Careful with this one guy's, it can be tricky.
Bump for all those who should be asking questions. (Or is it that I'm so eloquent no questions are necessary?) lol
Here's one for you Butch. I disputed a Gulf State tradeline with Equifax. When I received my official notification of the investigation results, Equifax stated that the item had been investigated and deleted. However, in the credit report they included with the investigation results that bore the same date, the Gulf State tradeline was still present and listed as "Consumer disputes. Reinvestigation in progress." Now two months later the Gulf State listing is still there and still bears the same comment. Of course I never received notice of any reinsertion. Can a CRA get around the 5 day notice and certification requirement by simultaneously deleting and reinserting on the same date, by telling you they deleted when they really didn't, or by endlessly listing the tradeline as being in dispute and under reinvestigation? Or do I have them on a violation?
Good Evening Butch, Thanks for providing that information. You are so right.....it's very tricky. I did however dispute the account with Equifax a year ago and it was deleted. I have all of my documentation including the CR from EQ stating the account was deleted. Citi still has not updated that TL in year - so I knew something was wrong. Thanks so much for the insight. I truly appreciate your advice. PS - I'm female. (smile)
Re: Re: Previously "Deleted" Information Thanks Doc. Yeah, I figured you did Slowyne. But since you didn't point that out I just kinda "used" your situation to point out this minor little detail that I think we need to be careful about.
Re: Re: Previously "Deleted" Information Butch, Very interesting stuff here! OK let's say I disputed 8 items with TU in November. 30 days later I pull my report, all 8 of those items have been "deleted" from my report. Never receive any "official" notice of my investigation results. Assume because the items are gone, they couldn't verify. Go back and forth with TU for a month about the results letter, they decide to add everything back on. Still no investigation results letter. I'm not sure if my file split and THAT's where these TLs went (hence, not a TRUE deletion) or if they had been unable to verify and then did delete & then reinsert.... Have report #1, all the negs are there Report #2 (exactly 32 days later) negs are gone Report #3 (33 days after #2) negs are back. ALSO, again with TU. In November, I notice a neg CO installment loan reporting with an open date of 1995, dola 1997. Incorrect- the account was opened in 1994 dola 1994. Should have been deleted in 2001 due to the age. I disputed based on this fact with TU, they deleted. NOW, it's back. Well, it was. I disputed- they removed. But, for 27 days that sucker was on my report and I made sure to incur some damages in that timeframe. BIG damages. Can TU turn around and say in both situations, it was NOT a reinsertion because: Situation #1- they never truly "deleted" the TLs- they just hid for a month. Situation #2- it was deleted because of the age, NOT because of an investigation? I already have them on 6-7 different violations, have already sent my ITS to them the other night. Just making sure my reinsertion assertion (for situation #2- couldn't figure out a way to prove #1) isn't baseless. Thanks
Re: Re: Previously "Deleted" Information Here is a interesting question: What constitute a reinserted account ? For Ex. I have an account that has been deleted by both the OC and it's CA. Now the account has been assisgned to another collection agency and now THEY are listing it in my credit report with a different account number of course (One of NCO's old tricks). Does this qualify as a reinsertion ? Or does the account info have to be from the same furnisher, eventhough it's the same account, to qualify as a reinsertion. Thanks
Re: Re: Previously "Deleted" Information Butch, you do bring up awesome posts. I have problems in the past with EX and EQ with reinsertions. I have been so busy that I haven't pursued them legally YET! Hopefully next week I can. Smontoya5 stated having problems with TU reinserting TL's. I have always known TU to be the best/worst at "cloaking" accounts. TU would delete an account if the any discrepency exsists. In the beginning, I would dispute a positive account for not updating or something else and the account would be deleted. It would take an act of a CRA god to get it reinserted. I know that many other newbies have disputed positive accounts with the same results. I know that CRA's change their policies often, and I'm wondering if TU has now changed theirs. That may be another example for you to dissect Butch. If the FCRA law hasn't changed how can the CRA's change their policies. Example: In the past, the CRA's would delete inquiries as easily as names and addresses, and I know that about a year ago EX stopped. I really haven't had a problem with EQ deleting inquiries, but TU has been a problem for a couple of years. Charlie
Boy is that first sentence a huge mis-statement. They're required to issue a 5 day notice prior to re-inserting the TL. But you knew that. Feel free to correct me guy's. I make mistakes too. LOL
Re: Re: Previously "Deleted" Information I think that they are referring to this portion of the FCRA: 6) Notice of results of reinvestigation. (A) In general. A consumer reporting agency shall provide written notice to a consumer of the results of a reinvestigation under this subsection not later than 5 business days after the completion of the reinvestigation, by mail or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by other means available to the agency.
Re: Re: Previously "Deleted" Information Yes, thanks QB ... ... but (6) has to do with noticing the consumer as to the results of the investigation. We're talking here about the notice requirement for previously deleted, and then re-inserted info.
Re: Re: Re: Previously "Deleted" Information Ok - more clarificaton please - and plan of action..... Old Sears account - not in collections or anything but lots of lates, overlimit and closed by credit grantor. Disputed in 11/02 and got letter from CSC (EQ affiliate - UGH) that said "prior paying history has been deleted from this account". From then until April '03 the account reads PAYS AS AGREED, UPDATED 12/2002/ CLOSED ACCOUNT and that's about it. Still reads that way on 4/14/03 Then on 4/15/03 I pull my report and is says: CONSUMER DISPUTE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION and is now reporting 90+ days late 01 times (This is when I start reading up on reinsertion but haven't had time to write the letter) Never during this time did I re-dispute and never did I receive ANY correspondence from them concerning this account. Then on 5/1/03 I pull my report and the CONSUMER DISPUTE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION is gone but the paying history reads: 30 days past due 09 times 60 days past due 07 times 90+ days past due 05 times I disputed some other information on 3/25/03 but this account has not been disputed since the update and deletion of lates on 12/02. What do I do now? I don't want to screw this up. I've got a BT going to get rid of that balance all together but I want those lates gone again. A letter quoting the FCRA and if so, any suggestions or examples? I've worked so hard to get some of the lates off of my reports (that was my biggest challenge) and now they're popping back on. Thanks guys - you give terriffic advice! Also, I think it's really interesting that my score has dropped way down (593) since the results of my last disputes (to about 50 pts below what it was before my disputes were sent in) and it hasn't changed a bit through all of these lates being added and dropped.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Previously "Deleted" Information lol, shoot you caught that! Can we have a grammer check? Thanks for the advice, Butch. I have gotten a "partial" response to my ITS notice- they deleted half of the negative TLs on my report. Unfortunately for them, that does not meet the terms of my settlement offer. I am anticipating having to go to court with this one. Actually, I am eagerly anticipating going to court with this one. I knew I wanted to take this to district court (my small claims limits me to only $1500 & no injunctive relief) so I needed to establish damages. I have tons of documentation on my side. I gave them until the 14th before I pull the trigger. In hindsight, probably gave them too long of a timeframe to act but I'm in no rush.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Previously "Deleted" Information lol, shoot you caught that! Can we have a grammar check? Thanks for the advice, Butch. I have gotten a "partial" response to my ITS notice- they deleted half of the negative TLs on my report. Unfortunately for them, that does not meet the terms of my settlement offer. I am anticipating having to go to court with this one. Actually, I am eagerly anticipating going to court with this one. I knew I wanted to take this to district court (my small claims limits me to only $1500 & no injunctive relief) so I needed to establish damages. I have tons of documentation on my side. I gave them until the 14th before I pull the trigger. In hindsight, probably gave them too long of a time frame to act but I'm in no rush.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Previously "Deleted" Information Interesting Update !!! At the bottom of the Equifax page, (Equifax.com) there's a microscopic, inconspicuous link marked "FCRA". In fact it's in REAL light gray so you can't see it. But it IS on there, thus complying with FTC requirement. LOL By going there and scrolling all the way to the bottom we see the following dialogue: (Make special note of #5) Both state and federal laws give you the right to dispute information in your credit file in order to have errors corrected. To do this: Notify the credit reporting agency (CRA) of your dispute (each CRA has a toll-free number for this purpose). The agency then contacts the source of the disputed information and must correct any errors. If disputed information on your report cannot be verified, it must be deleted. If you disagree with the result of the CRA's investigation, you have the right to submit a 100-word explanation and this explanation must be included in your credit file. Check your credit file periodically to see that information that has been removed has not been re-inserted. (Deleted information may not be re-inserted into your file unless the agency takes steps to have the source of the information certify that it is complete and accurate.) And that, ladies and gentlemen is what Eq. DOES NOT want you to see !!! As far as I'm concerned this gives me all the permission I need to DEMAND a copy of this mysterious certification. If I didn't get it, I'd file in superior or district court and start discovery. Have fun!
