OK gang, I have these nice little beauties where this butthole from a paid CA is requesting more information from me to validate this alleged liability. I received a procedure form letter from Transunion and it gives the address and telephone number of where they verified. I know that this is a slam dunk but my next move is this letter to all CA showing the attached letter on his letterhead and his refusal to validate or even know how to validate or delete the Tradeline. Rough Draft Stupid Credit Reporting Agency (Trans-Sux, Equisux, Evil Experian) To Whom it May Concern, As of today, I have not been able to attain proper validation of this paid Trade line. Account number ___________/Company name. This item was dispute utilizing your on line dispute services on January 31, 2003. As evidenced by your updated credit report this item has marked "remains/verified. I am convinced that a proper verification of this information on my credit report was not conducted. My proof is in the correspondence received from Suck butt CA on February 24 and February 28 (please see enclosed letters requesting more information from me) I am demanding deletion of this trade line from my credit report for lack of proper verification as per the FCRA. (you figure out the specific line) I am also requesting an updated credit report. If this is not done, I will have to explore my legal alternatives. I hope that we can settle this situation amicably. Sincerely Epitomee ( I am a girl darn it) All opinions are appreciated. Should I lose some words, add something more specific or am I going after the wrong group? I am also working with CA AG with copies of the letters from the CA Bozo.
OK. The letter looks good, but I don't understand the slam dunk part. The CA is required to validate before continuing collection activities and you are sending the letter to the CRA? The CRA is required to verify. It may very well get you what you want. But, isn't the follow up estoppel and ITS to CA? In any event good luck!
The only way this CA even responded was with the Estoppell/Plaintiff Statement letter. They did not even respond, what the CA stated is that he was responding to my "numerous" correspondence. The first correspondence was sent to him on Jan 21 and signed for on Jan 24. I faxed the Estoppell with the plaintiff statement on Feb 24 and CMRR on Feb 24. That is when he responded. The other times he just ignored me but kept verifying with the CRA. I have a potential violation with the Transunion bozo's, this account was disputed and a procedure letter was returned to me. The guy who keeps writing me is the CEO of the company, is that not a slam dunk. How and why were they able to verify when the company keeps asking me for more information. Since this butt hole is not going to back down and I am going for expediency, I feel that some pressure should be going against the CRA and this CA. What do you think? Oh by the way this is my nutcase rationale
If it is a paid account they are not required to respond to you and are allowed to verify with the CRA. Personally, I think it sucks. That is why the whole nucase series and dancerat series came about. Like I mentioned I like the letter and it may get what you need, I just thought it important to realize there really is no substance behind it and I would not consider it a slam dunk. In any event best of luck!
Under the FCRA, if any info reported is disputed to a reporter of that info, they must investigate it and report it as disputed, whether it is paid or not, per section 623.
LKH said, "Under the FCRA, if any info reported is disputed to a reporter of that info, they must investigate it and report it as disputed, whether it is paid or not, per section 623." This is true (and since it doesn't appear that a paid CA must validate), how must a CA investigate a disputed account under the FCRA?
Re: Re: Continuing Saga of a Paid CA A ca falls under the FCRA as a reporter of information. § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] (a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information. (1) Prohibition. (A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate. (B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if (i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and (ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate. (C) No address requirement. A person who clearly and conspicuously specifies to the consumer an address for notices referred to in subparagraph (B) shall not be subject to subparagraph (A); however, nothing in subparagraph (B) shall require a person to specify such an address. (2) Duty to correct and update information. A person who (A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the person's transactions or experiences with any consumer; and (B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate. (3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer. (4) Duty to provide notice of closed accounts. A person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a consumer who has a credit account with that person shall notify the agency of the voluntary closure of the account by the consumer, in information regularly furnished for the period in which the account is closed. (5) Duty to provide notice of delinquency of accounts. A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action. (b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute. (1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall (A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information; (B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i]; (C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and (D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis. (2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information.
Re: Re: Continuing Saga of a Paid CA I know what the FCRA says. What I was saying is, what does a CA (as a reporter of info) have to do to "investigate" a dispute? We know (via FDCPA and opinion letters) what they must do for validation, but what about an FCRA "investigation"? This part of the FCRA doesn't seem to have any "teeth". I mean, what's to stop a CA from saying (in this situation), "sure, we investigated, and we're reporting correct info, too bad."? It seems to me that the burden of proof in these situations falls on the consumer (i.e., the consumer must prove that the CA's reporting is inaccurate, and not the other way around).
Re: Re: Continuing Saga of a Paid CA Well my first letter to these bozo's was a nutcase/validation letter. They ignored until the estoppell. Where the teeth may be in the fact that they continue to ask me for more information to conduct an investigation. If you, the ca, verify with the cra, and the consumer dispute as not mine, what more information do you need to conduct a validation to prove to me that the item is mine. This ca just wants me to spin my wheels. I am of the opinion that the CRA are in violation because the procedure letter from Transunion states they contacted this company, but the letter from the CA asks me for more information. (I know I am repeating myself)
