Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof I received the same form letter from Experian on numerous occassions and Trans Union. However, Trans Union is much more flexible when it comes to documentation. But, when it comes to Experian, they flat out told me on every phone call, we are unable to delete anything off your credit report regardless of the information you provide us. They state that they are only a data recording company and they can only add or remove information either submitted directly to them by creditors / collection agencies or letters sent by me on the creditor's letterhead. They said they will not and are unable to delete any item on my credit report due strictly to documentation I have provided them.
Re: Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof Excellent suggestion...just did that yesterday. We shall see.
Re: Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof Unfortunately, they did the same thing to me on numerous occasions. I do not believe they are required by law to mark the account as in dispute. It is the responsibility of the DF to do so but not the CRA (but I could be wrong).
Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof Experian states this exactly: "We are responding to the information you sent us. Unfortunately, we could not use this information. We are contacting the source of the information you questioned. When we complete our verification process, which may take up to 30 days, we will send you the results." They are not stating they are declining the information, they are stating they can't use it. There is difference. The difference is that I sent a copy of the contract showing I didn't have an account with the original creditor when the debt was allegedly incurred and I asked them to delete the entry. They then reply and are essentially saying they can't delete the account due strictly to that contract and they will contact the source to see what they have to say about it. So they accept it, but they don't USE it to delete the account. Instead, they either forward the document itself to the creditor or, more likely, note on the dispute that they have a contract showing the account was closed in 1999. The creditor verifies the account anyway and you are back at square one. Unfortunately, in my situation, I have no letter stating the account should be deleted from the collection agency as they refuse to delete even though I provided both the CRA and them directly a copy of the contract. Although I do absolutely agree that, given previous case law, they are REQUIRED to go beyond simple verification. However, it is ALWAYS much more complex than simply quoting a law or previous cases. If it was that easy, shoot, 75% of the people on this forum would be suing and winning their cases with ease. So, altough I don't agree with their form letters, I am sure it has been tested and disputed many times over using the same reasoning as ours. Yet, it (form letter) is still being used. Again, although I do agree they have a responsibility to go further than simple verification, I don't agree that a form letter stating "we could not use this information" is, in itself, sufficent grounds for a lawsuit.
Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof UPDATE: Maybe I was a little too aggressive in stating you should not send them your proof at all. Let me restate that you should not send them your proof more than once. If they don't delete it the first time, do not waste your time sending Experian the same documentation in two or three follow ups because it will do no good and it will waste your time. After the first letter, you have your paper trail. I guess my anger with Experian got out of hand.
Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof § 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.
Re: Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof And I guess it'll ultimately be up to a judge/jury to determine "relevancy" in court ? Sorry if I missed any caselaw references !
Re: Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof I had a positive experince with Experion several years ago. They kept verifying a judgement on my report that really was not mine. I took a day off from work and went to the courthouse to get a copy of the judgement. The copy clearly showed that no judgement was entered in my name. I called Experian and threatened to sue the crap out of them. The asked me to fax the copy of the judgement (I faxed it to them). Got a call back the next day with an apology and the judgement was off my report. EDG
Re: Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof EdG, That you viewed this exchange as positive is the only good thing about it, dare I say. Exp kept verifying a judgment that wasn't yours, hurting you and your credit. They cost you money! Exp has laws they are required to follow, not pretend to follow or sidestep to string you along and get you to do their work. They kept verifying something that wasn't yours, shame on them, their job is to verify -- they must, if they don't it can't be reported. You should have never had to go to the courthouse to get a copy of a judgment, shame on them, that is their burden, not yours. Of course they apologized and deleted, the alternative was paying you for their violations!!!!!!!!!! It's not ok, I say, that Exp did that to you. It's not ok that it is still going on as evidenced by the postings in this thread. I am however glad you found it to be a positive experience. They have laws they are required to follow and they plain didn't -- didn't and still don't. You did what you were supposed to do in disputing, going to the court house yourself was beyond your call of duty, but it got you your deletion. What if you couldn't have done that? If Exp had followed the same rules you were, the rules they are required to follow, it would have been deleted the first time you disputed it. They are lucky you are a nice guy! Go Sunhawk Go!!!!!!!!! Hold them accountable! Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof Here's a Consent Decree in agreement between the FTC and Equifax. I'm posting the whole thing but the part in italics is "relevent". http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1995/08/equifax2.htm FOR YOUR INFORMATION.......................August 18, 1995 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Federal Trade Commission has given final approval to a consent agreement with Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Equifax Inc., settling charges that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the consumer credit information it compiles and sells nationwide to credit grantors, employers, and others. The Commission's action makes the consent order provisions binding on the respondents. The final order requires Equifax to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information contained in its consumer reports. Specifically, when a consumer provides Equifax with documentation confirming the consumer's version of a dispute, Equifax is required to accept that version unless it has reason to doubt the authenticity of the document. Equifax also is required to reinvestigate, within 30 days, information disputed by a consumer in his or her credit report. If Equifax does not verify the information within that time period, it must delete the information until it is verified. The order requires Equifax to implement procedures to assure that no derogatory information which has been deleted after being disputed by the consumer reappears on the consumer's credit report unless (1) the information has been reverified, and (2) Equifax advises the consumer in writing that the information has been reinserted in the credit file. Equifax also is required to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to those with a permissible purpose under the FCRA. Concerning the practice of compiling information from consumers' reports for specified credit-related characteristics, a process known as prescreening, the settlement mandates that Equifax require purchasers of these prescreened lists to make a firm offer of credit to every person who appears on the list. The order also requires Equifax -- within 180 days after the order becomes final -- to file a written report with the FTC detailing the manner in which it has complied with the provisions of the settlement, and submit for FTC approval, a methodology by which changes to its computer system will be measured. Finally, the order contains additional recordkeeping requirements designed to help the FTC monitor Equifax's compliance with the order. The consent agreement was announced for a public-comment period on Feb. 8. The Commission vote to issue it in final form occurred on August 14 and was 4-0, with Chairman Robert Pitofsky not participating. NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $10,000. A news release summarizing the complaint and consent agreement was issued at the time the Commission accepted the consent agreement for public comment. Copies of these documents and the final order are available from the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202-326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 1-866-653-4261. To find out the latest FTC news as it is announced, call the FTC's NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710. FTC news releases and other materials also are available on the Internet at the FTC's World Wide Web Site at: http://www.ftc.gov -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (FTC Docket No. C-3611) (FTC File No. 902 3149) (equifax-2) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a Deposition with Equifax's illustrious/intellectual giant by the name of Maynard Bryant. He states the following: "There is no presumption as to who is correct when the consumer disagrees with the DF"". However, that which is italicized above (and what obviously escapes Mr. Bryants attention span) there IS SUPPOSED TO BE A PRESUMPTION! And that is that the consumer is correct in the absence of solid evidence to the contrary. Much like the presumption of innocence in a criminal indictment. In my sometimes not so humble opinion, if you get a letter from them that says they cannot/will not accept your documentation ... SUE THEM IMMEDIATELY!!! Moreover, if they re-insert a previously deleted TL, (as a result of your dispute that is) and fail to send you a notice within 5 business days ... SUE THEM IMMEDIATELY!!! If there exists ambiguity in the law or disagreement between the consumer and the DF/CRA, consumer law is supposed to be construed in favor of the consumer. That's why they call it "consumer protection law".
Re: Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof Much like the requirement that validation come directly from the OC through the CA and then to the consumer is designed to avoid dunning the wrong person, ... § 611 [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (2) (A) is designed to prevent the CRA from procaliming that your documentional evidence cannot be authenticated. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE REQUIRED TO SEND IT TO THE DF ALONG WITH YOUR DISPUTE !!! SEE?
Re: Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof oh wow, fave Butch growling dude, That's a GREAT find! Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof Sorry for my delayed responses but I was not getting any eamil notifications that I was receiving replies to my threads. I think there is a big difference between cannot/will not accept your documentation and cannot/will not USE your documentation. Accepting the documentation implies that they are going to forward it to the DF as REQUIRED by law. However, using the documentation implies that they are going to remove the information you have on your credit file based on that information alone. Just as a reminder, the exact letter from Experian states: "We are responding to the information you sent us. Unfortunately, we could not use this information. We are contacting the source of the information you questioned. When we complete our verification process, which may take up to 30 days, we will send you the results." Based on that, it clearly says they will not USE the information. That does not mean they will not acccept it. In fact, based on the "tone" of the letter, it appears that they are forwarding it to the source. They don't say so directly but they do say they are contacting the source and since they are required by law to forward them the information, that is probably what they are doing. And remember, like I stated before, I doubt this form letter surfaced last week. I am sure many people have filed FTC violations regarding them refusing to ACCEPT their documentation. But, this letter is still being used. Let me think of an analogy. It is kind of like getting an old 1950 beat up blender from Grandma for your birthday. Sure, you are going to ACCEPT it (you don't want to tell Grandma her blender sucks) but you are not going to USE it. But, just because you won't USE it, doesn't mean you won't provide that blender to the source, Salvation Army. Also, Butch, I just wanted to say, that case you found for me, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, INC., absolutely spectacular. I am using that case almost in every letter I send out now. It very clearly states that, when performing an investigation in regards to a dispute from a CRA, the source MUST compare the information they are reporting with original account records or delete. If they verify and they have no original account records, they are in deep do-do. Thanks again!
Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof On the other hand, this reply from TU specifically says they are unable to accept. Experian simply says they are unable to use. I guess though, still, Trans Union does not come right out and say they are not going to forward the documentation to the DF. They just say they won't accept it [probably meaning they won't use that information to remove the listing directly but will rather forward it to the DF]. However, based on the wording of their slick letters, we unfortunately cannot confirm or deny what they are doing with the documentation UNLESS we contact the DF and simply ask if they forwarded them the documentation. However, most creditors / collection agencies will understand nothing of what you are talking about until you bring them to court. And then they may state, oh, yes, we got the documentation provided by Experian.
Re: Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof Exactly. Beautifully done Sunhawk. You so eloquently just brought us right back to my original point. Once again here's what I said to Cinderella: "Cinderella has it exactly right. File a suit in federal district court against BOTH the CRA and the CA/DF, and in demand of a jury trial. Then start discovery with an eye toward releasing the CA/DF as soon as they provide you with an Affidavit that states the CRA failed miserably to provide them with the letter from THEM (via YOU) during the dispute/verification process. That's why the CA verified. Their left hand doesn't know what their right hand is doing, and the CRA failed to provide the letter as is required by law. Once the CA/DF furnishes this Affidavit you can release them but now, you have the CRA exactly where you want them and they may settle for about $5,000 - $15,000. " There's no other way to determine if the CRA sent the information you provided (which originated from the DF) BACK TO the DF as an accompaniment to your dispute. Are we expected to believe that ANY of them will actually tell us the truth? Even if they did you'd still have to prove your point in court (assuming it got that far). Naturally you should try asking the DF for this affidavit before adding them to the suit. But they'll be too busy of course. So ... like I said, nuke them both and let God (the court) sort it out.
Re: Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof Hey Butch, I now understand completely. The only problem is, it is $150 per lawsuit in federal court. Therefore, you have to file $300 worth of suits and then, you still may end up at square one if the creditor does state Experian provided them with the documents. Then, Experian may then turn around and sue me for attorney fees up to that point (in drafting their response). Although, at that point, you could then go after the source but then again, you are now $300 or more in the hole and may end up with nothing. I guess I just want to make absolutely sure my case is rock solid before I move forward. Do you have any experience with representing yourself in Federal Court as Pro Se? I have to take Household Beneficial to Federal court for at least $11,000 and I really don't have too much knowledge about the proceedings (compared to regular small claims court). This is in regards to my posting here: http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...hreadid=46186&highlight=errors+sometime+occur Basically, an outstanding debt was settled in 1999 and they lost proof that it was settled. So, they continued to send collection notices to me (directly, not through a collection agency) until just 3 months ago. However, they placed 11 account review inquiries on my credit report AFTER the account was settled and therefore closed. As I see it, the account was settled in 1999 and therefore closed thereby invalidating their permissible purpose of account reviews. Yet, they did so anyway and being liable for $1000 per inquiry, $11,000. This does not even include the 4 times they verified the account as being accurate when I disputed it through the CRA. Nor does it include their failure to update my account as being in dispute (despite sending me a letter stating they would). And finally, it doesn't include their recent change from PAST DUE to SETTLED FOR LESS THAN FULL despite telling me in a letter that, if I paid 50% of the balance, they would mark my account as paid in full. I think I have a good case here but with small claims only allowing $3000 in my state, I have to go to federal court and have little knowledge about the actual procedure.
Re: Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof Sunhawk, Accept or use are semantics I say. It's a plain language statute!. They are required to reinvestigate and provide all relevant information regarding the dispute in their notice to the information furnisher and within certain timeframes. The only exception is if they determine it's not relevant. Relevant is the key word, not accept or use. They've not declared it irrelevant so they must follow (4) below. That says they SHALL review and consider, they've no choice if it's not irrelevant. The only thing they get to decide is relevant or irrelevant. Sassy § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (a) Reinvestigations of disputed information. (1) Reinvestigation required. <<snipped to cut to the chase>> (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. (B) Provision of other information from consumer. The consumer reporting agency shall promptly provide to the person who provided the information in dispute all relevant information regarding the dispute that is received by the agency from the consumer after the period referred to in subparagraph (A) and before the end of the period referred to in paragraph (1)(A). (3) Determination that dispute is frivolous or irrelevant. (4) Consideration of consumer information. In conducting any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) with respect to disputed information in the file of any consumer, the consumer reporting agency shall review and consider all relevant information submitted by the consumer in the period described in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such disputed information.
Re: Re: Re: Don't waste your time sending proof Sunhawk, if you filed in Federal, your cost should only be $150 if you file one complaint against both CA and the Evil Exp. As far as EXP and attorney fees goes, the is from Section 616 of the FCRA: Based on what you have said, seems like you would have a legitimate reason to file a complaint and there is nothing to indicate you filed in Bad Faith or to Harass. For EXP to be awarded attorney fees, you have to lose and a determination has to be made you filed in bad faith/to harass. **I am not a lawyer, this is only my opinion**
