Re: Re: Demand Procedures! here is the PD letter i put together...please let me know if you think any changes should be made (especially Butch)... 22 MAR 04 This letter is in response to your correspondence regarding my dispute. The Experian Report Number is #######. The item from my credit report that is being disputed has an account number is ##### and is in the amount of $87. In your letter, you state the following: The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act states that you may: --request a description of how we verified the information, including the business name and address contacted and the telephone number�; --add a statement disputing the accuracy or completeness of the information; and --request that we send these results to organizations who have reviewed your report in the past two years for employment purposes or six month for any other purpose� I am hereby exercising my rights as detailed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act - § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i], Paragraph 7, which states: (7) Description of reinvestigation procedure. A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer a description referred to in paragraph (6)(B)(iii) by not later than 15 days after receiving a request from the consumer for that description. Fair Credit Reporting Act - § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i], Paragraph 6, Section B, Item III states: (iii) �requested by the consumer, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information shall be provided to the consumer by the agency, including the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information and the telephone number of such furnisher� I am hereby requesting a description of how my dispute was verified, including the business name, address, phone number and any other contact information pertaining to my dispute. In addition, I am also requesting that my updated Experian Credit Report be included with your response. Sincerely, dilla ..thanks in advance everyone dilla
Re: Re: Demand Procedures! Just out of curiosity: -what are you trying to get? -what happens if they dont reply? -what happens if they DO reply?
Re: Re: Demand Procedures! tweeked that letter a little bit and send it to EX today CMRR. i'll let you know how they respond, since the consensus is that they're tough to crack. dilla .
Dilla, I don't know that I would go into so much detail about the law in question. It's not our job to educate them about the law, and they know they are breaking it in most cases anyway. I think the more effective letters just hint that you know the law and that they are breaking it. You need only make select point for them to realize you have done your homework. This is based on my own experience, and the posts I recall having seen here on CN.
EX signed for PD on March 24th and i received a letter from EX today dated March 30th stating the following: my limited knowledge of the FCRA tends to agree with what they state in the last paragraph. my understanding is that the CA must provide all the original evidence regarding the debt. also included with this letter was the tradeline for the collection in question, the CA's name and address, and name of the OC. now, i've read all about the generic responses CNetters have gotten from EX, and this appears to me to be one of them. i can't imagine this is their PD response...because if it is, according to: from FCRA (6)(B): (B) Contents. As part of, or in addition to, the notice under subparagraph (A), a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer in writing before the expiration of the 5-day period referred to in subparagraph (A) --(i) a statement that the reinvestigation is completed; --(ii) a consumer report that is based upon the consumer's file as that file is revised as a result of the reinvestigation; --(iii) a notice that, if requested by the consumer, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information shall be provided to the consumer by the agency, including the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available; --(iv) a notice that the consumer has the right to add a statement to the consumer's file disputing the accuracy or completeness of the information; and --(v) a notice that the consumer has the right to request under subsection (d) that the consumer reporting agency furnish notifications under that subsection. this letter they sent me doesn't satisfy (6)(B)(i) (6)(B)(ii) (6)(B)(v) [/list=1] if this is not their PD response, what is it??? dilla .
it's been well over a month since EX signed for my procedures demand and i still haven't received anything from them....what is my next step?? does anyone have any advice?? dilla .
Re: Re: Demand Procedures! since we already know the CRA will most likely violate the procedural request what code are we suing them under ?
Re: Re: Re: Demand Procedures! BUMP. SOMEBODY here must know what statute to cite and what case law to back up your claim.
See the excerpt below from a case that I think is unpublished. This excerpt is discussing Rule 11 sanctions against a P who sues a furnisher in the absence of making a procedural request to the CRA. It can't be that a CRA complies with a procedural request by failing to state the actual procedures that were used. "Plaintiff faces the very real possibility of Rule 11 sanctions because Plaintiff had an easy avenue to determine whether Nicor received notice under the FCRA and should have taken it before filing suit." ------------------------------------------------------ VARNADO v. TRANS UNION, LLC, (N.D.Ill. 2004) ALVIN VARNADO, Plaintiff v. TRANS UNION, LLC and NICOR GAS, Dfendants 03 C 6937 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois. April 28, 2004 This Court disagrees. The statutory language makes clear that the duties of furnisher of information under section 1681s-2(b) are only triggered upon "notice Page 4 pursuant to section 1681i(a)(2) of this title of a dispute." 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 <javascript:docLink('USCODE','15+U.S.C.++1681S-2')>(b)(1) (emphasis added). Section 1681i(a)(2), in turn, defines notice as "includ[ing] all relevant information regarding the dispute that the agency has received from the consumer or reseller." Equating notice and the provision of all relevant information is consistent with the requirements of section 1681 s-2(b)(1). Subsection (A) provides that the furnisher of information, upon receiving "notice," must conduct an investigation with respect to the "disputed information." Similarly, subsection (B) provides that the furnisher must "review all relevant information provided." If this Court adopted Plaintiff's interpretation, i.e., that the credit reporting agency's obligation under section 1681i(a)(2) was merely to tell the furnisher that a dispute existed without providing "all relevant information," it would undermine the full scope of the furnisher's obligations under section 1681s-2(b). Thus, the Court concludes that Nicor's duty to conduct an investigation, review all relevant information, and report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency is triggered by proper notice pursuant to section 1681 i(a)(2) provided by Trans Union. It is true that while Rule 8(e)(2) permits inconsistent pleading, Moriarty v. Larry G. Lewis Funeral Dirs. Ltd, 150 F.3d 773 <javascript:docLink('F7CASE','150+F.3D+773')>, 777 (7th Cir. 1998), the federal rules require Plaintiff to make a "reasonable inquiry" prior to "drop [ping] papers into the hopper and insist[ing] that the court or opposing counsel undertake bothersome factual and legal investigation." Mars Steel Corp. v. Cont'l Bank N.A., 880 F.2d 928 <javascript:docLink('F7CASE','880+F.2D+928')>, 932 (7th Cir. 1989) (en banc). In Densmore v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., where the plaintiff sued a furnisher of information for failure to investigate a disputed debt, the court stated that "a party may not file a lawsuit in order to conduct a fishing expedition based on a hunch," Page 5 especially when the key information as to whether the furnisher of information received notice from a consumer credit reporting agency is "readily accessible without discovery." No. 03 C 1866, 2003 WL 22220177, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25, 2003). The Densmore court reasoned that the FCRA provides that "a consumer is entitled to receive `a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information . . . including the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information.'" Id. (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1681i <javascript:docLink('USCODE','15+U.S.C.++1681I')>(a)(6)(A)). As such, "[t]he answer to the critical question regarding notice is readily ascertainable" and it is inappropriate for a plaintiff to "drag [a furnisher] into court without conducting a concrete investigation into whether its duties under the FCRA were ever triggered." Id. While the Court finds Densmore informative as to whether Rule 11 sanctions may be appropriate down the road, this Court holds that at the pleading stage, given the liberal pleading standards it cannot dismiss Count III against Nicor because Varnado may be able to prove a set of facts that would entitle him to relief. If, through discovery, Nicor establishes that its duty under the FCRA was never triggered, then, of course, Plaintiff faces the very real possibility of Rule 11 sanctions because Plaintiff had an easy avenue to determine whether Nicor received notice under the FCRA and should have taken it before filing suit. The Court therefore denies Nicor's motion to dismiss. Page 6
So the consumer should dispute thru the CRA, and also request procedures, before filing suit? The court assumes a degree of compliance by the CRA that may not be present in the usual replies to requests for procedures.
This is the excerpt that I find most valuable. "The Densmore court reasoned that the FCRA provides that "a consumer is entitled to receive `a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information . . . including the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information.'" Id. (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1681i <java script:docLink('USCODE','15+U.S.C.++1681I')>(a)(6)(A)). As such, "[t]he answer to the critical question regarding notice is readily ascertainable" and it is inappropriate for a plaintiff to "drag [a furnisher] into court without conducting a concrete investigation into whether its duties under the FCRA were ever triggered." Id. While the Court finds Densmore informative as to whether Rule 11 sanctions may be appropriate down the road..."
The court quotes the law on what the consumer should have received from a procedure request. Do the CRAs actually send this, or just a generic form letter?
The DF isn't liable unless the CRA does its job. What if the CRA never does its job? Is the DF then never liable?
Great work WatchDog; I saw long ago that a court opined that the FCRA requirement to perform a "reasonable investigation" MUST be triggered by the consumer following through on ALL the administrative efforts to resolve a problem, INCLUDING, DEMANDING PROCEDURES. This is why I posted this thread. It would be embarrassing to say the least to get into court and when the judge asks "did you demand procedures", and you say what ... "NO"? lolol This is a natural part of your ability to challenge a TL, merely step #2 in the sequence. ALWAYS demand procedures. 99 times out of 100 you'll get some pathetic, silly, non responsive quai-response from the CRA. This, if nothing else, can be used as legal argument to consider filing suit.
That's almost exactly right Ontrack. It's called "escaping liability". The probability that they would escape liability is extremely high because the DF will attempt to assert that they were NOT properly informed that a problem existed. This is one reason we argue with BOTH the CRA and the DF when fighting a TL. Once you get your pathetic Demand for Procedures response from the CRA, it will not even qualify as junk mail. Now you have exhausted your administrative remedies responsibilities, and it is this EXHAUSTION of same which ripens your case for litigation. We can't just waltz into court because we're pi$$ed off. Follow the procedure gang.
