Ya gotta love this answer from a CRA... What land-slide of case-law in addition to CUSHMAN will poke holes in this response? "FCRA doesn't require a credit reporting agency to investigate, mediate, or negotiate in account disputes." Hmmm, and doesn't that sound like an admission to violating the "Re-investigation Required" section of the FCRA.
Almost. lol Technically I suppose it could be said that their reply was carefully/restrictively limiting their response to "account disputes". Which of course would make the statement correct. I'd make sure they understand that I'm not discussing with them an "account dispute", but rather, and accuracy dispute. Focus on the "reasonableness" of their investigation.
SHEFFER v. EXPERIAN: (quoting Sullivan) Under the FCRA, a credit reporting agency that has received a notice of a dispute from a consumer is required to promptly provide notification of that dispute to the furnisher of the relevant credit information. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2). Thus, in light of Plaintiff's allegations, it appears that [the merchant] would have been notified by the Defendants about the disputed information in Plaintiff's credit report unless those credit reporting agencies were acting in violation of the FCRA. In any event, this issue is one appropriately resolved after discovery has been completed. See Sullivan v. Equifax, Inc., Civ. A. No. 01-4336, 2002 WL 799856, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7884, at * 6 n.3 (E.D. Pa. April 19, 2002). (emphasis added) In testimony before The Senate Banking Committee, on July 10, 2003, Evan Hendricks, Editor and publisher of Privacy Times, presented the following testimony: "The 1996 Amendments attempted to preclude the need for litigation by specifying a higher standard of care for CRAâ??s, furnishers and users of consumer reports. We need to recognize the reality that the Amendments have not achieved their goal and that in too many instances consumers who want to protect their good name MUST [file a lawsuit] SUE". (emphasis added)
Well, in my e-mail response to the BBB, I pointed out that they must investigate; if they are the least bit unreliable, and by their own reporting to their agency shows that they are. And used CUSHMAN to show that the case law supports me demanding that. The best part is their answer couldn't even indictate whether it was DELETED, OR VERIFIED! You would think that that would be the one thing that the CRA would actually know.
Well, I figured out why the CRA couldn't tell whether it was deleted or verified... Apparently the CA deleted it from both CRA's when they received my last correspondence to them... at least according to PG. Of course, I also noticed that the OC is now listing it (even though they received the same correspondence) under their own name (on TU). So another small victory...
After looking over the last real report I received, I think the PG 'new' trade line under the OC's name, may just be the 'abandoned' CA trade line; the CA's listing with TU prefixed the OC's name with '01', and that's how the PG trade line is showing... Hopefully TU just hasn't processed the deletion, or I'll need to do one last dispute... *fingers crossed*
I get real nervous trusting PG when I'm doin any serious work. They are notoriously innacurate and slow to update.
Well, hopefully I'll be getting an official TU, sometime soon... If not, I can always request an AA report...
Re: Re: Butch Give me a hint then, Butch. Do you use another on-line service, or do you wait for hard copy via snail mail ...or...? I've noticed that PG at least lists whether the account is open/closed and the EQ report I'm looking at now does not.
Re: Re: Butch If one is just starting out it's critical to get hard copy reports before you do anything. But as you're going along, you'll want to check, at least periodically, your hard copies. But PG is ok I guess, for occasional checks. Mostly my preference. .
Re: Re: Butch Another good thing about PG, is if the trade line is in dispute, you may be able to get a day or so head start if you check your PG report and notice that it has been updated (at least for accounts where they are adding interest or other fees, if the amount changes, you know they verified.)
Re: Re: Butch I keep singing *celebration* this morning, at least temporarily... The 'new' entry appears to have been the abandoned CA entry (in the time between the one CRA deleted their entry, and the other CRA deleted their entry.) So, *sigh of relief* now I can concentrate on a fund-raising drive to sue the CA's and the OC.. (Can you tell this CA peeved me off? royally... 0/1/2/3 seems to be the best 'baddy' scores that I can get right now (not that I'm going to stop trying. ) It took me months to get the progress to this point (10 months of continual dispute of 1 account to EQ, 4 months of continual disputes to the other two of the same account.)
