1*"Refusal" infers there was a "duty" or "requirement" to reply. In this case, there is no such duty or requirement. hiding90 ================= The only requirement is they have to prove it or they can't collect.
They STILL have a duty and responsibility to report accurately, and to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure that they do. Refusing to respond or correct is not "reasonable". These are what the large dollar cases where information is entirely erroneous and both OC and CRA fail completely, seem to hinge on. FCRA and FDCPA only provide a "safe harbor" for fixing routine errors routinely without liability. There are still the legal concepts of tort and defamation, and if OCs or CRAs stray eggregiously outside their protections, having procedures that don't work won't protect them. The decisions seem to pivot on whether, given that the consumer repeatedly brings errors to the parties' attention, with no effective resolution and severe damage, are the first-line cursory procedures still "reasonable" when a more thorough response is clearly necessary to maintain "accuracy". The above is my personal opinion. I am not an attorney.
