FCRA- Whats this mean???

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by KHM, Aug 1, 2002.

  1. KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    § 615. Requirements on users of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681m]
    (B) to dispute, under section 611 [§ 1681i], with a consumer reporting agency the accuracy or completeness of any information in a consumer report furnished by the agency.


    § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i]


    (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.

    So let me see if I understand (thanks Marie for making me think ;)
    The word ANY, doesn't mean excluding inquiries Does it? So I would think refusing would be a slam dunk violation.
    Now, TU system can't mark and item "in dispute" (thanks Marie), but it CAN delete info while it's in dispute. So TU may be able to stutter and stammer in court about their poor old decrepid (sp?) system, but that same system CAN delete.

    Am I reading this right? What are your opinions?
     
  2. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    YES! You are.
     
  3. KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    Butch-
    Do you think we should be using this in our disputes to the CRA's regarding inquiries?
    After we receive the RR from TU (if we mail our disputes), or the confirmation online, should we send them this little excerpt from the FCRA, noting they are in violation?
     
  4. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Sure I do KHM,

    It's a well settled lagel principle that the starting point of statutory construction is the statute itself.

    Meaning; if the darn thing says ANY information then Congress meant ANY information PERIOD - END OF STORY! :)

    Inquiries should be handled in much the same way as Re-Insertions.

    I just started on RI's. You can see my starter letter at:

    http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&pgnum=1&postid=215602#post215602

    A similar letter could go in for inq.'s. Make up a starter letter and insert some law. We can perfect it, send it and see what happens. Great idea.

    :)
     
  5. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    BTW,

    Another letter we need is to demand ALL the information made available to requesters.

    The statute says ALL the information is to be made available to those to whom the report pertains.

    I'll be working on letters to demand the Trimerge, Mortgage report.

    It'll take awhile to perfect the startegies but it needs done.

    :)
     
  6. KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    TO BE USED ONLY IF YOU GOT THE BOGUS "INQUIRIES ARE A RECORD OF FACT" from any CRA:

    I am writing in response to your letter dated xx/xx/xxx.

    In your letter, which was responding to my dispute dated xx/xx/xxxx, you state "Inquiries are record of fact". You provided me with the contact information for these creditors, who had no permissible purpose to obtain my credit file, and told me me to dispute directly with the creditors.

    By refusing to initiate my requested investigation, you have violated the FCRA.

    The FCRA simply states "§ 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i]


    (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...."

    The word ANY does not mean with the exception of inquiries. Any means anything in my credit file that I feel is incorrect be it my date of birth, name, address, or inquiries.

    Therefore, to avoid a possible lawsuit for FCRA violations, I demand the following inquiries be removed:

    name of creditor xx/xx/xxxx

    If these are not removed within 15 days, I will be forced to file a complaint with the FTC, BBB, my State's Attorney General.



    sincerely,
    very po'd creditnetter


    Of course it's 145am and this is a very rough draft, so please make some corrections of changes what have you :)
     
  7. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    That's a good start.

    Get some sleep.

    :)
     
  8. rblues

    rblues Well-Known Member

    I think that you are definitely on the right track. It is a total violation of the FCRA for refusal to investigate. I've always thought so, at least.

    To make this letter even stronger, I think we need to delve even deeper into why they think it "a record of fact". I know that this topic has been beat to death on the board, but now that we are are plotting a strategy, we can revisit the topic, find any holes and make a stellar letter.
     
  9. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Dear CRA,

    Your assertion that inquires are a matter of record and beyond your control leaves the entire compliance burden up to the requester of information, and relieves yourself of any responsibilty whatsoever.

    This is not what Congress intended.


    § 607. Compliance procedures [15 U.S.C. § 1681e]

    (a) Identity and purposes of credit users. Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 605 [§ 1681c] and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 604 [§ 1681b] of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 604 [§ 1681b] of this title.


    If this inquirie is not removed within 3 days I shall demand copies of all the above mentioned documentation, even if I have to file suit and start discovery to get it.

    blah blah blah.

    I'm pooped.
     
  10. KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    Bump....
    Please let's keep this going.
    Even though there maybe a 45 day club, this will still be helpful if they close that club.
     
  11. InsideGuy

    InsideGuy Member

    Maybe congress had their heads up their ass when they said "any".

    ANY ...Maybe that's unreasonable since inquiries are recorded for your information, and are records of fact, and not "reported' - thus can't be re-investigated beyond the fact that they actually happened.

    Ah, the same people who go home and talk about all the losers in congress hold congressmen up high when they need them.
     
  12. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Well ... you've now successfully exposed yourself as a low level employee. Your bosses feed you that steady line of sacred bull so you know what to say when you get somebody on the phone.

    Your bosses tell YOU it's a matter of fact and can't be disputed. Here's what I tell your bosses.

    § 607. Compliance procedures [15 U.S.C. § 1681e]

    (a) Identity and purposes of credit users. Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 605 [§ 1681c] and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 604 [§ 1681b] of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 604 [§ 1681b] of this title.


    Fortunately we live in a country of law not opinion. It matters not who's head was up who's ass. The law says "ANY" - END OF STORY.

    You WILL provide me with information or be sued in Federal District Court, in demand of a jury trial. Or you may take the easy way out - which of course you always do - and simply delete the inquiry.

    Insideguy, you are illequiped to be trying to deal with the folks on the board. They know the law better than you do and you're the ... well .... InsideGuy.

    LOL

    May I suggest you print this out and go ask your boss why they lied to you about inquiries, when it is obvious that your company has a high level of responsibilty here.

    Do you really want to work for such people?
     
  13. jambe

    jambe Well-Known Member

    Showing your true colors InsideGuy?

    For there to have been an inquiry in the first place, there had to be permissable purpose. Lacking such, there can be no inquiry, record-of-fact or not!

    Does the CRA have full and complete certification on record authorizing the supposed record-of-fact inquiry? If not, would the CRA prefer to pay fines for not having it, or delete the inquiry?

    Besides, if inquiries were merely for our information, it would NOT be an issue with anyone on this board. The FACT is inquiries are used against consumers every time they apply for credit.

    I have no problem with leaving an impermissable inquiry in my file (as it WAS a matter-of-fact, illegal or not) IF, and ONLY IF, they are coded in such a way as I am the only one who can see them AND they are not used as input to any scoring algorithms.
     
  14. QUEEN_BEE

    QUEEN_BEE Well-Known Member

    Insideguy works for Transunion.
     
  15. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    He has no idea what you're talking about Jambe.

    You have to keep it REEAAALL simple.

    LOL
     
  16. jambe

    jambe Well-Known Member

    Yeah Love, I knew :eek:)
     
  17. QUEEN_BEE

    QUEEN_BEE Well-Known Member

    Sorry, I posted before seeing other posts where he was 'uncovered'.
     
  18. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    He was?

    Where?

    :)
     
  19. KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    Butch-
    Easy boy! I've read his other posts, and he is NOT coming off like coughPulsecough. He appears to be willing to learn from us as well as teach us.

    Although his opinions regarding inquiries may differ pretty much everyone on the board, I don't think his post meant any harm.

    Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, a CRA insider may be a nice change for once :)
     
  20. QUEEN_BEE

    QUEEN_BEE Well-Known Member

    [edit]
     

Share This Page