I sent a letter to an OC stating that I never have paid my account 30 days late. I also stated that this item is in dispute and should be noted on my credit file until this gets straightened out. I sent this letter on 7/10/02. On 7/17/02, I received a phone call from the OC asking me for additional information. I promptly provided the info. I have fax cover sheets showing that the letter went through on the dates noted above. My credit file has never been updated to show this item in dispute. I think I have them on a violation of the FCRA...But I wanted to make sure. Also, do I have to wait 30 days before they respond. If they don't respond, then does it have to be deleted. Thanks
Once they asked for more info, they can have up to 45 days to investigate. Also, they do not have to delete. They can say it is accurate w/o providing you with any proof.
Thanks for the responses. Another question I have is that I asked that this account be listed in dispute while the investigation is happening. They have not. Do I have them on a violation for not listing the account in dispute?? Thanks in advance.
None of that applies here. That is for the CRA in a dispute. Here, a letter to the OC sparked a response asking for information...what information were they asking you? Tell them they have all the information they need, if they can not prove you were late, they should delete the listing. Are you a current customer of this OC or is this a closed account? -Peace, Dave
Dave, Thanks for your response. I already sent them the info on 7/17. I didn't quite understand why they were asking me for the info because I currently hold a cc w/ them and they could review my account whenever they want. I am going to try to talk to them tomorrow to see where they are in the investigation. I thought that if I said the item is in dispute, then they should list it w/ the CRAs as being in dispute. Am I mistaken?
Baday, where you say: "I also stated that this item is in dispute and should be noted on my credit file until this gets straightened out.". The OC does not have such obligations placed on them. If you dispute the item with the CRA, the item should be marked as in-dispute, or through validation with a CA, but nothing forces an OC to place the listing in dispute. -Peace, Dave
Dave, I must disagree. But don't get mad. LOL Please read #3. § 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.
That does not compel the OC to submit a notation of "in-dispute" on a past entry. It only requires that "if the OC then notifies the CRA for any reason subsequent to the consumers statement, they must have the notation"...correct?? the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer. So the notation would have to go on the credit report (as I said above) after the consumer disputes with the CRA and the OC verifies...or if the OC submits new information to the CRA on "tape" etc...Not simply if the consumer asks them to note the account. yes/no... And I never get mad Do I?? -Peace, Dave
I read it to mean that it can't be reported without the "disputed" notation - period. I wil call the friendly reps at the ftc tomorrow and ask. I was just kidding about the don't get mad comment.
Any furnisher of information, whether the oc or a ca IS required to list the account as "in dispute". Also if you dispute an account with the CRA they must list it as "in dispute". too. So it works both ways. Admittedly one of the confusions in the law. YES - you have a violation.
Oh also - it is NOT a requirement that you notify the furnisher *in writing* of your dispute. Telling them on the phone is proper notice. That said, you SHOULD follow-up with a written dispute just to be sure.
That is why I ALWAYS immediately dispute the item with the CRA once I know the OC is in receipt of my dispute letter. Either the CRA verifies it with the OC and it gets re-reported correctly or the OC fails to report to the CRA that the account is in dispute when they contact them. Thus, it will state either "last reported" or "last verified" on your credit report the date after the OC received your dispute letter. If the information was verified and re-reported by the OC and they did not communicate to the CRA the item is in dispute....."Gotcha!!!" Doing it my way takes out any misconstrument of what 623 notice of dispute does mean or could mean because you cover all your bases by having the CRA have the OC re-report the info when you know the OC know's you are in dispute. Tac
Butchster, Were that the case, the FCRA would read: (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 MUST furnish the information to the consumer reporting agency with notice that such information is disputed by the consumer. JMO -Peace, Dave
Dave, LKH, Butch, and Tac...Thanks for your responses. Now that we have established that they have violated the FCRA, how should I use this violation? I was thinking of keeping it in my back pocket and using ONLY if I have to. My strategy is stay polite unless they don't delete, in which I will try to trade the violation for deletion. I would rather have the item removed rather than $1k as my wife and I going to buying a house and new car in the next year. I think my interest rate savings will out-weigh the $1k. Good strategy or bad?
I know what ya mean Dave. I got to this interpretation only after reading a lot of case law. As you know sometimes the courts interpret things a little differently than what the actual statute seems to say. I'll see if I can find the case(s) I'm talking about.
