CRA's Required to share Info?

They aren't required to share. Heck, I would be happy if they just played fair.

 

I'm a hopeless case, addicted to rhyme. I try to stop but it happens all the time.


~

 

I don't know if jlynn's was intentional or not, but when we came up with something like that when we were growing up, my mother used to say:

"You're a poet and don't know it.
But your feet do--they're long fellows!" (Or maybe it was Longfellows. Since it was always spoken, who knows?)

 

The CRA's aren't required to share, they are required to have a system in place for the furnishers to update with all CRA's, as the furnishers are already required to do -- nothing makes them use the system however.

That doesn't take away from the requirement that they are required to update with all CRA's originally furnished to in response to a dispute where the information is found to be inaccurate.

Sassy

 

Sassy:

Is it required that they let the CRAs know that the info is innacurate as soon as they know...

I don't want to hijack this thread, but I have a stack of letters from the presidents office of a bank I've been fighting with since they turned me over to a CA (then recalled the account on dispute); they haven't reported the account since before the validation was sent, nor updated the account to indicate any of the disputes, nor updated the CRAs that they realized, when I sic'ed the BBB on them that the information was "unverifiable" and after repeated requests to the presidents office to comply with the FCRA and update the CRAs, their answer was send our letter to the CRA they'll update it based on that (yeah, sure they will -- we know how much they even look at the enclosures.)

Its been 3 months since I forced the presidents office to admit in writing that they have been reporting unverifiable information, and they still aren't updating.

I'll point you to the post that I asked this question on earlier...

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=374789

 

Great question Chris,

You're not hijacking Jam. This is a good question.

We'll need to do some backtracking on this one. I'll try to work it straight backwards.

623 btw, pertains exclusively to the DF's and their responsibilities.


The pertinent section reads:

• § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

• 
  
  (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
  
  (b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute.(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.

Since there are several CRA's the DF's are required to correct ANY info. with ALL of the CRA's, to which they may have reported, if that info. is found to be inaccurate as a result of an investigation, PURSUANT TO CERTAIN SECTIONS.

Obviously Congress intended to save you from having to dispute with ALL applicable CRA's. Disputing with ONE triggers this whole procedure.

But notice where it says; "pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i]".


Well ... now we need to go look at 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i].

611 pertains exclusively to the CRA's.

• § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i]

• 
  
  (2) Prompt notice of dispute to furnisher of information.
  
  (A) In general. Before the expiration of the 5-business-day period beginning on the date on which a consumer reporting agency receives notice of a dispute from any consumer in accordance with paragraph (1), the agency shall provide notification of the dispute to any person who provided any item of information in dispute, at the address and in the manner established with the person. The notice shall include all relevant information regarding the dispute that the agency has received from the consumer.

The CRA must receive notice of dispute in accordance with paragraph (1),

Great ... now we need to bounce again, up to paragraph (1). sigh

• (1) Reinvestigation required.

• 
  
  (A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer.

So ... before we even have an FCRA argument with a DF we must first dispute through the CRA. They told ya that 4 different times, and that's just the times I put in here.

Anytime a DF tells us to dispute through the CRA they're probably doing so to avoid work. They are inherently lazy people. But since it's a requirement anyway just go ahead and do it.


The point of this thread then, Yeah the DF's MUST repair info. they find to be inaccurate as a result of an investigation. But before this whole procedure kicks in it may be arguably required for you to dispute thru the CRA. The CRA's are NOT required to share information between each other.

Finally the CRA's were required to implement an automated system which would facilitate these DF requirements. see www.cdiaonline.com

That's their system.

See?

.

 

BTW, if we fail to dispute thru the CRA and go directly to the DF I DO believe they should fix the inncorrect info. If they don't I'd sure pitch my b*tch.

But you may lose your case if, as the FCRA tells you, you don't FIRST dispute thru the CRA's.



.

 

Yeah, just with the albatross that I was fighting, I wanted to allow the SOL to finally tick-tock without stirring the cage with another crowbar...

And on 9/30, it'll be an even 3 months since the presidents office admitted that they were reporting unverifiable information...