Today, I was driving down the road changing the channels on the radio and sure enough, there was good old Clark Howard rattlling off something about Congress passing a law.The law states that consumers cannot dipute something after two years of it appearing on their consumer reports, whether or not the information is fraudulent or misleading. I caught the tail end of the program and I am dying to know if anyone has heard anything about this and if so, could they elaborate. It this is true, I am going to be really ticked off. Of course, this would not be the first time Clark was wrong, He is wrong all the time...
GD, That info's been around here a bit lately. There is a recent link here: http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...ad.php?s=&goto=newpost&threadid=17690&pgnum=1 {EDIT} Be prepared to be ticked! {EDIT AGAIN} Ok, now that I've re-read and understand your post. I jumped too soon. This is the deal about the supreme court supporting the 2 year law suit limitation against the CRAs. Not about disputing.
I searched for his name and came upon his site. Nowhere in todays show notes does it mention that, but here's a link to the show notes archive. http://clarkhoward.com/shownotes/clarchives.html
I believe that people are misinterpreting the recent supreme court decision. That decision is, that in cases of identity theft, you can only sue for two years after the fraud occurs. It used to be two years after you discover the fraud. There is no law that you cannot dispute an erroneous entry with the credit bureaus after two years are up. In the case of the recent supreme court decision - it is a strict interpretation of the FCRA. So what we need to do is lobby our congressmen for revisions to the FCRA.
Maybe todays show was a repeat, but what he said rang loud and wrong as usual. If you listen to Clark Howard he gives consumers loser advice each and everytime when it comes to the FCRA and the FDCPA rulings. He was spouting off this stuff about this two year ruling with absolute wrecklessness. He almost made me have a fit!! That two year ruling is a bunch of B.S. if you ask me. Some folks rarely ever apply for credit except for big purchases,(house, cars etc.). What a JOKE!!!! These judges need to get their heads on straight. I guess the next time the IRS forgets that I owe them taxes, I am home free if they dont take action within two years, Right? What if I dont pay on my school loan for two years? If they dont pursue it in that time frame, will I be exempt from repayment of my government loans.?? If I buy a brand new car and the car falls apart in the middle of the highway due to no fault of mine, in two years or more, then I have no right to sue the manufacture..? What the hell kind of logic is that?
One exception is an unlimited amount of time to sue states that are on the U.S. list sponsoring terrorism. Passed in 1996 I believe. 3 or 4 cases won 250 million judgements. Watch for more...
Ibrown59, I agree with this rule for most situations, but when it comes to an unsuspecting consumer trying to fix their credit and a CRA wont fix the problem, it doesnt matter to me if it was 2 years or 200 years. If you had no idea that the incorrect information was being reported, and the CRA would not remove the information, then I believe that there should be know statute of limitations in this situation. If the CRA willingly removes the information then so be it !!!!
Sure, let it start the day of discovery, that way the CRA's can do exactly nothing for two years,(like they do for most uneducated consumers..) This way they are off the hook and so is the customer reporting the incorrect information. The sad part is that most consumers have no idea on how to combat these problems and by the time they do it could be too late..
So what else is new.I have been disputing The gas Co.bills for years about one problem and over a year on another issue.My local phone Co.Charged my account 75 bucks for 5 returned check that were never given to them.I have been disputing this with the phone Co for over 5 years.Both of these Cos.are doing the same thing to me that you are describing about the CRAs.So you don't have to tell me about it. I don't know the Ans. to the problem you pointed out.but I sure whish I did as it would sure help me out.
