I have 3 CO credit cards that are paid on my credit reports. They are several years old. They have never reported accurately. I will just get one thing fixed on them, and then another error will apear. They show as closed, then the next week as open. I even got an alert one time from Equifax that there had been activity on a long dormant account. It was THEM changing the date of last activity to be 6 months more recent! This account was supposed to be closed! I have been disputing these errors for 6 months on one, and over a year on another and 2 years on the third yet they always come back verified ( but inaccurate) Is there some law that limits the amount of time the CRA can list these accounts inaccurately before they are obligated to delete this information? ( know that they arent supposed to be listed inaccurately at all... yet they are. )
not laws, but case law... Cushman v. Trans Union. Hopefully you have all the copies of the previous, verifications stored away. If you can show by the documentation, that the data furnisher is unreliable, i.e. everytime they allegedly verify the information, they verify something completely different then how they had previously verified it, then they can not use the parrot theory "We don't make the data, we only report what we are told by the data furnisher", because they have been formally notified of the data furnisher's unreliability.
"Is there some law that limits the amount of time the CRA can list these accounts inaccurately before they are obligated to delete this information? ( know that they arent supposed to be listed inaccurately at all... yet they are. )" -Actually, there is LAW -The basis is 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, AKA 611 - 15 USC 1681s-2 (b) also known as FCRA 623 (b) is the liability section. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#611 http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#623 -Once you notify the reporting agency of a dispute, they are required to to notify the "furnisher of information" of the dispute and THEY BOTH are required to "conduct a reasonable investigation" into the dispute. -If they fail to "conduct a reasonable investigation", they are in violation of LAW, NOT CASE LAW -By having so many disputes on the SAME issue, in this case, they have obviously NOT CONDUCTED A REASONABLE INVESTIGATION/REINVESTIGATION. -The Cushman case IS about violation of LAW. Its an alleged violation of 611 : "This appeal concerns, among other issues, the extent of a consumer reporting agency's obligation, pursuant to section 611(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a) (1982), to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of information on a consumer's credit report alleged by the consumer to be inaccurate " -It can be confusing, but with some time, you can learn the law and SUPPORTING case law such as Cushman. It was a great case cite Jam Good Luck!
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! : ) You guys are THE BEST! Nightstar told me to ask over here and she was right! You all have the legal answers ! I cant thank you enough!
The best thing in this case is unless the CRA is admitting that they are 'unreliable', they have to concede that the data furnisher is 'unreliable' because their own repeated verifications are contradictory...
Send it to the CRA... Now, you are actually not 'disputing' the account, but the RELIABILITY of the data furnisher. Your arguement is that if they are verifying something different on xx/xx. xx/xx, xx/xx, and xx/xx, there is no way that anyone, you, the CRA, or even the data furnisher themselves can rely on what the data furnisher is providing, because the data furnisher has repeatedly proven itself to be unreliable. Under Cushman v. Trans Union, if you notify the data furnisher that the data furnisher is unreliable, then they can not rely on the data furnisher's word alone. A key part is that a major factor of a Cushman based case, is whether or not the consumer has specifically informed the CRA that the data furnisher is unreliable, so the more you emphasize the phrase "Data Furnisher is unreliable", you're taking away their biggest defense. In a case like this, the only way for the CRA to say that the data furnisher is reliable, is for the CRA to admit that they unreliably reported what the data furnisher had previously provided on the previous disputes. Butch does have a letter for this type of situation, which you may be able to find to use as a template for your letter.
