EFX not req'd to mark "in dispute"

Re: Re: Re: EFX not req'd to mark "in dispute"

Read SubSection 605(f)

"Indication of dispute by consumer. If consumer reporting agency is notified pursuant to section 623 that information regarding a consumer who furnished to the agency is disputed by the consumer, the agency SHALL INDICATE THAT FACT IN EACH CONSUMER REPORT THAT INDICATES THE DISPUTED INFORMATION."

Thats it right there. They have to mark it in dispute.

 

Re: Re: Re: EFX not req'd to mark "in dispute"

Yeah but they throw that line in there..pursuant to 623...
623 is in regards to the FURNISHER telling the CRA's that the account is in dispute.

 

Re: Re: Re: EFX not req'd to mark "in dispute"

unruly you should have mail..

 

Re: Re: Re: EFX not req'd to mark "in dispute"

got it!!

 

Re: Re: Re: EFX not req'd to mark "in dispute"

After getting some sleep and rethinking this I was realizing why so many dispute with the CRA and attempt disputes with OC's and CA's at the same time.

Basically, even IF the CRA doesnt have to mark an account in dispute (this is still up in the air) the "furnisher" of info DOES!
So if you dispute with the CRA AND the furnisher and the account is not marked in dispute you can then SUE the FURNISHER for not marking.

All you have to do is call (and tape) the CRA and say
US:"why wasnt the account marked?"
Them: "we dont have to ."
US: "who does?"
Them: "the furnisher"
Us:"So I am to assume they didnt ask for the account to be marked? If they did ask and you didnt mark then YOU are liable."
Them:"That is correct. They didnt ask, so we arent liable."
US:"Thank you." click,stop recording...........


Imagine the "furnishers" response when you file a suit and back it up with evidence directly from the CRA.
Remember the FURNISHER pays the CRA's bills. Would YOU wan to hang Ford or Chase out to dry?

Anyway just another perspective.

 

Re: Re: Re: EFX not req'd to mark "in dispute"

BTW:
Has anyone sued a CRA (credit reporting agency) for not listing the account "in dispute" and won?

After 300 views I am getting a little concerned........

 

Re: Re: Re: EFX not req'd to mark "in dispute"

ok ok

While various interpretations of the law lose or win court cases every day, the section with regards to investigation and marking current status is plain as day.

One other approach you may take it to look at the state guidelines governing credit reporting agencies. This may back your claims in addition to the fed fcra. Somtimes the lawyers forget to think about individual laws governing each state. They may argue that they are in TX, so only TX law applies to them, but I assure you, each state laws applies to them as well...since they do business in all states.

Look in the business/commerce laws for your state. Even if any of the terminology or language is just a few words different, it may make or break your case.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: EFX not req'd to mark "in dispute"

Yes, I agree that this specific section does indeed require the cra to mark "current status...if current status is that it is being disputed, then yes, they must do so.

The reasoning behind this is that decisions about you are being made based on the info in your report...even the wrong/incorrect info. In order to keep libel suits from happening, it is to the CRA's benefit to mark it as disputed. Unfortunately, we cant change the stance of how the attitude of the cra's are. They forget these laws are in place to protect them as well. They dont understand it is in their best interest to go ahead, suck it up and mark it in dispute.

Example:

An account shows up as inc in bk...I never filed bk.
I dispute it and the cra doesnt mark it indispute. I apply for credit and am turned down because of bk. Isnt this like being guilty before proven innocent due to the willful negligence of the middle man (CRA)

Now, cra's will tell you that they are just reporting what the ca/oc tells them to. And yes, for the most part they are, but if the party that the info is written about (YOU) contests the accuracy of the info and the CRA refuses to make note of the disagreement until an investigation is complete, doesnt that make it appear as though they are still right and that you dont contest the item if you are a lender that is just reviewing your file?

Another example...reporter does a story on someone who says you "did" something. Paper prints the article. You read it...the whole town reads it...and obviously you disagree...You call the reporter and give him your story and the reporter does nothing about it...He runs another story reiterating the info that the other guy said about you.

I know these are far fetched examples and I didnt mean to cross-over from FCRA to civil laws of libel per se, but...this is virtually what it is. The cra's spend so much time dissecting the fcra that they sometimes negelct to see that civil law applies too.

Just some Friday morning thoughts...sorry of I went too far OT.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: EFX not req'd to mark "in dispute"

I just talked with my boss, who is a lawyer...indeed any reporting of false info is libelous. By not marking items in dispute when we, as consumers, in fact, dispute them, it indicates continuous printing of libelous information. He referred to instances when we/media/people must say "alleged murderer" or "alleged thief" rather than "the murderer" or "the thief" in terms of writing and describing this person.
By not marking items as being in question, they are virtually leaving out the "alleged" protion of the information that is deemed derogatory, hence, if provable, falls and qualifies under damaging libel per se.

Interesting stuff.

You must explain to the court that since you disputed and since it wasnt marked as disputed, there is no reason for a lender to beleive that the item may be false/incorrect and that a negative decision was based on this information. After your dispute of the info, if it continues to appear as if it is true information, a resonable person is led to believe and respond as though it were true information. If you take the same false/incorrect info and put the words "consumer disputes", a reasonable person is going to assume that there is some dispute to the info.

CRA is going to hollar FCRA all the way...that they may not be required under fed law to mark it...obviously they have a reason to believe they are right...according to their interpretations. They will provide all sorts of docs re: fcra and stand by the fact that they dont have to mark it. THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE!!! Pull the plug in their bath tub by sticking to the fatc that EVEN IF (giving them the benefit of the doubt just for $hits and giggles) the FCRA may not require them to mark it, by not doing so, your civil rights ar being violated.

This is beyond FCRA, if you really think about it. Research Libel laws and also research your state laws re: governing of cra's. I bet you will find something.

I wonder if this could turn into a class action libel suit?????? Yeah, I know, I know...Pretty Stoney...I'll shut up now, lol.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: EFX not req'd to mark "in dispute"

good points.. i thought I read somewhere though that the CRA can't be held liable for lible, defamation of character, etc., unless it's willfull intent to cause injury??
I dont recall where I read it though, and I just glanced over the FCRA and didn't spot it.. Does this ring a bell with anyone?

 

Sec 610

e) Limitation of liability. Except as provided in sections 616 and 617 [§§ 1681n and 1681o] of this title, no consumer may bring any action or proceeding in the nature of defamation, invasion of privacy, or negligence with respect to the reporting of information against any consumer reporting agency, any user of information, or any person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency, based on information disclosed pursuant to section 609, 610, or 615 [§§ 1681g, 1681h, or 1681m] of this title or based on information disclosed by a user of a consumer report to or for a consumer against whom the user has taken adverse action, based in whole or in part on the report, except as to false information furnished with malice or willful intent to injure such consumer.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: EFX not req'd to mark "in dispute"

fcra strictly covers willful/negligent noncomplaince of the stautes included within...libel, etc, falls under civil remedies.

Depending on the state where the casue of action arises, there may be more in-depth sectiond of the state governing of cra's. Within these you will find more detailed regulaitons and remedies available under these laws...i.e. investigating, reporting, arbitration, claims, etc. If youalso research state civil libel laws, it wil specifically state any exemptions to the libel law.

If reasonable nad good-faith measures have been taken by the consumer, the cra refuses to acknowledge the info may be false and continues to report it...obviously that falls under willful noncomplaince. In addition, they would be conidered as willfully continuing to print false/advese info. It isnt necessarily the "printing" of the info...ithe damage is done when someone, third party, reads the info and bases negative decision or reputation based on it.

 

In reading this and the related sections, it appears that you cannot sue the cra for supplying you with a credit report or the oc for supplying information according to 609 as long as the disclosures are in there, for identifying you as you prior to doing so in 610, or sue the "lender" who uses the info to make their decision.

However, it says nothing of excluding liability for the actual information contained within the credit report.

All 609 says is they have to give you a report with:
all info in it,
inqs,
summary of rights, etc.
If they dont give you any of the required info, the only claim would be under 616 and 617.

In 610, if they do their best to id you, and take necessary actions to do so, th eonly recourse would be 616/617

In 615, you cant sue the bank for denying you crdit if they just used the cr they were presented with.

609 seems to be the biggest one to research.

If I'm totally off the mark, go easy on me...I'm tired

 

Re: Re: Re: EFX not req'd to mark "in dispute"

EFX is the only CRA I've noticed that has listed items in dispute. The others never did

 

Re: Re: Re: EFX not req'd to mark "in dispute"

very good posts. I wonder what a judge would say if you told the CRA to mrak the item! Could it then be construed as malice..We already can prove wilful!