Please tell me if i am wrong... Let's say an unsophisticated consumer disputes a credit report's TL and the CRA investigation comes back verified and the CRA attempts to point you back to the TL subscriber. Or for that matter, the individual requests the procedures used to conduct the "reasonable investigation" and the CRA responds with a name and number of someone at the CA and directs you back to them as the TL subscriber.... At this point you request directly from the CA the DOLA. Are they not obligated to provide the consumer with this infrmation per the FCRA? If this is true...if the CA's reported DOLA (to the consumer) does not match the one they are reporting to the CRA it sure seems to me that the CA would have been forced to place a rope over their own necks. Would this not help with a reaging lawsuit ?
If you have disputed the DOLA with the CRA, and it is verified, you should presume that that is what the CA intends to report.
Hey Smyth, You've been studying. In the event that the CA cannot obtain or determine the true DOD, they are instructed to insert, into the Metro 2 system's DOD field, the date the account was opened. This would absolve them from re-aging liability because under ALL circumstances the Opened Date precedes the DOD. Thus, the TL would fall off sooner, rather than later. See? I do believe it would be reasonable for the consumer to expect that if he requested the DOD, the OC or CA would furnish it.
"At this point you request directly from the CA the DOLA. Are they not obligated to provide the consumer with this infrmation per the FCRA? " -Obligated? No -A good business practice, yes. "If this is true...if the CA's reported DOLA (to the consumer) does not match the one they are reporting to the CRA it sure seems to me that the CA would have been forced to place a rope over their own necks. Would this not help with a reaging lawsuit ?" -Problem is that once the furnisher sends the date, the reporting agency DOES NOT HAVE TO REPORT IT. And if THEY make a mistake, how is the furnisher responsible Additionally, the "date of last activity" has not be defined as far as I know. So at this point, it is an irrelevent date as far as the law is concerned. I am hoping we can change that
Well, I would'nt be so presumptuous as to presume or assume anything! I'd just like to see the CA and CRA fall into a sandpit and struggle trying to get out! I imagine the CRA would hand the CA over to an informed consumer rather than suffer yet another lawsuit...
Re: Re: A thought about reaging Yes Sir! I have been studying! The long threads where you and Hiding debate are very informative and really helps me to think "outside of the box". Keep uo the good work!
Re: Re: A thought about reaging Problem is that once the furnisher sends the date, the reporting agency DOES NOT HAVE TO REPORT IT. And if THEY make a mistake, how is the furnisher responsible ---That is what i'm getting at. I'd like for the CRA to point the finger, and direct the paper trail towards, the CA...all for the judge to see. It sure seems reasonable to me that if an alledged debtor requests information about the debt---not actually a validation but kind of...that "good business practices" and the fear of litigation would dictate that you provide the requested information. Additionally, the "date of last activity" has not be defined as far as I know. So at this point, it is an irrelevent date as far as the law is concerned. ---So we should request the DOD instead? Since it is defined by the FCRA? I am hoping we can change that
Re: Re: A thought about reaging Argueably yes. Because the "reporting period" specifically mentions "date of delinquency", referred to as "date of the commencement of the delinquency". So if you request the "Date of last activity" they can presumably say "today, you just called us!" LOL Stick to established laws, its safer....for now.
