Expert help?? CRA procedure letter

Experts: Please help me with editing this letter before I send it to TU tomorrow. I plan on sending a pared-down version of this to the other CRA that has this acct. as well. They didn't do a re-insert, but the CA still denies having the information in their database...so how are the CRAs verifying it?

Oh, btw, should I send this to someone in particular, i.e., higher up on the food-chain?

Thanks, Creditnetters!

Dear Sir/Madame:

I have a problem concerning the dispute of an entry on my credit report (File #######). (CA)/ Acct # ###/(OCName) was disputed on 2/15/02 as an item which does not belong to me. The item was deleted from my file by 3/14/02 as â??unverifiable.â?

This item was not on my report dated 4/24/02; however when I purchased an online report on 5/23/02, the item had been placed on my report again. I disputed the account immediately. In my dispute, I asked why I had not received a written notice from Transunion within five (5) days of reinsertion per the FCRA.

Instead of compliance with the law, I received three form letters from Transunion, all dated 05/30/02. One letter said that my other items were being investigated. The second letter said that my dispute for SARMA was being considered â??frivolousâ? because I had already disputed it. The third letter mentioned that the item had been reinserted because the disputed information had been verified.

I have a couple of problems with this. First, I contacted (CA) on 5/23/02, requesting a validation of this account that I do not believe is mine. The first request gave them 30 days to respond per my rights under the Texas Finance Code. The second request, a reminder that the 30 days would be over in less than a week, was faxed on 6/18/02. I received a response the next day (see attachment). On the bottom of the fax cover sheet, Ms. C.A. Worker of (CA) wrote, â??We do not have database here at (CA). You must write CRA at (address).â?

In effect, (CA) is saying they do not even have this account, and they are giving me CRA's dispute address. So how did CRA verify this account if (CA) denies having the information? Is this (CA)'s account or not? It is listed as a (CA) account on my credit report. This is inaccurate and unverifiable information that must be deleted.

The second problem I have is this -- these form letters that CRA sent are all dated seven (7) calendar days after I discovered the item on my report. I hate to think how long the item had actually been on my report before Transunion decided to mail notification.

I am hereby formally requesting the description of the exact procedures used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the disputed information, including the telephone number and name of the person at SARMA with whom the credit bureau representative spoke in connection with this investigation.

I am upset that you have failed to maintain reasonable procedures to assure complete accuracy in the information you publish, and I insist you comply with the law.

From the FCRA:
(5) Treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable information.
(A) In general. If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) of any information disputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the consumer's file or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation.

Sincerely,
Me

 

Argh... I just wish I was dealing with Experian. So far, they've been the easiest to deal with.

Thank you, all of you, for all of the comments. This is definitely helping me gain a little confidence. And I think confidence is the key to winning on these points.

 

I will definitely include this. I don't know if they'll get a notarized statement, but I sure don't think they'll have a "certification" either.

Well, I'm not including Sat & Sun, but they are. In that section regarding reinsertion, it does say "5 business days," not "calendar days," unfortunately. I thought it was business days, too, before they pulled this...but then I re-read that section. Had I known prior, I would have waited one more day before calling it to their attention.

Arglebargle.

 

Oh, btw, should I send copies of the online reports to the CRAs to show that I have proof that they HAD deleted it, and then reinserted it?

And should I also send copies of my letters to the CAs and their response back to me, or will they even care that the CA said they don't have that info?

Thanks again!

 

More information...

Just found some new information about SARMA. Hmmmm... Apparently, their collection information MIGHT BE housed with Transunion, according to this website.

http://www.sarma.com/collection.htm

However, in this case, TU has failed to give me a procedures correctly. In one of their form letters, they gave me SARMA's name, address, and phone number of the place to dispute the information.

Could this be construed as a violation?

I've rewritten my letter. In it, I'm not exactly claiming they violate the 5-day insertion, but I do mention it. Everything else is pretty much the same, except I added a request for a certification. But if TU has SARMA's information on this debt, how are they going to certify it?

It seems a little...oh what's the word? Incestuous? No, that can't be it. (HA!) It just seems odd that TU would be housing the collection information and also reporting this on the CR.

What next?

 

New letter (any comments?)

The one to EQ is similar, but does not mention the 5-day reinsertion, because after looking at my paperwork, they hadn't ever deleted it. EX, though, did at the drop of a hat. This makes me fairly certain that SARMA did NOT verify this debt with EQ or re-report after months with TU. Otherwise, wouldn't they have re-reported it to EX as well?

Dear Sir/Madame:

I have a problem concerning the dispute of an entry on my credit report (File ####). SARMA/ Acct # XXX/OC was disputed on 2/15/02 as an item which does not belong to me. The item was deleted from my file by 3/14/02 as â??unverifiable.â?

This item was not on my report dated 4/24/02; however when I purchased an online report on 5/23/02, the item had been placed on my report again. This concerned me, because I had never received the five-day notification alerting me to the fact that the account had been reinserted. In my online dispute, all I asked was why I had not received a written notice from Transunion within five (5) days of reinsertion per the FCRA.

Instead of compliance with the law, I received three form letters from Transunion, all dated 05/30/02. One letter said that my other items were being investigated. The second letter said that my dispute for SARMA was being considered â??frivolousâ? because I had already disputed it. (How is asking what happened to the 5-day notice a dispute?) The third letter mentioned that the item had been reinserted because the disputed information had been verified and simply gave me the address and general phone number to SARMA, not the specific individual at SARMA who â??re-verifiedâ? the item nor a certification of the accuracy of this information. These form letters that Transunion sent are all dated seven (7) days after I discovered the item on my report. I hate to think how long the item had actually been on my report before Transunion decided to mail notification.

I have a couple of problems with this. First, I contacted SARMA on 5/23/02, requesting a validation of this account that I do not believe is mine. The first request gave them 30 days to respond (per my rights under the Texas Finance Code). The second request, a reminder that the 30 days would be over in less than a week, was faxed on 6/18/02. I received a response on 6/19/02 (see attachment). On the bottom of the fax cover sheet, Ms. Mary Lou Stewart of SARMA wrote, â??We do not have database here at SARMA. You must write Transunion at Transunion, P.O. Box 34012, Fullerton, CA, 92834.â? No one has responded with validation of this alleged debt.

In effect, SARMA is saying they do not even have this account, and they are giving me Transunionâ??s dispute address. So how did Transunion verify this account if SARMA denies having the information? Is this SARMAâ??s account or not? It is listed as a SARMA account on my credit report. This is inaccurate and unverifiable information that must be deleted.

Please refer to the FCRA § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (B) Requirements relating to reinsertion of previously deleted material.

(i) Certification of accuracy of information. If any information is deleted from a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph (A), the information may not be reinserted in the file by the consumer reporting agency unless the person who furnishes the information certifies that the information is complete and accurate.

This section states that in order to re-insert a previously deleted item the furnisher MUST *certify* the accuracy of the info. SARMA says they do not have this account. Transunion says they have verified. Has Transunion CERTIFIED that the information is complete and accurate? With which individual did they certify this? How did they do so if SARMA denies having the account? I request a copy of the alleged certification for my records, if it exists.

I am also hereby formally requesting the description of the exact procedures used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the disputed information, including the telephone number and name of the individual at SARMA with whom the credit bureau representative spoke in connection with this investigation. If you are unable to provide the certification of accuracy as well as the exact procedures used to determine that accuracy and completion, then I demand that you delete this item from my credit report.

Also from the FCRA:
(5) Treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable information.
(A) In general. If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) of any information disputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the consumer's file or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation.
I am upset that you have failed to maintain reasonable procedures to assure complete accuracy in the information you publish, and I insist you comply with the law. Failure to comply with these federal regulations by credit reporting agencies will result in my filing a complaint with the FTC and pursuing other legal options.




Sincerely,

 

Letter to SARMA (the CA)

And THIS is what I'm sending to SARMA. Which letter do you think will get the best results? If any? Am I fighting a losing battle?

Please comment if you have any...I really want to feel confident that I do this correctly. Thanks...

Future1966


June 25, 2002
RE: Account #XXX/OC

Dear Sir/Madame:

On the evening of May 23, 2002, I faxed a letter to you regarding this account that is showing on my credit reports. In that fax, I gave you thirty (30) days to validate this account per the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Sec. 392.202 of the Texas Finance Code. On June 18, 2002, I sent a reminder that the 30 days were due to expire soon. The thirty (30) days is now expired.

On June 19, 2002, I received a facsimile from Ms. Mary Lou Stewart (see attachment). At the bottom of the fax cover sheet, Ms. Stewart handwrote the following: â??We do not have database here at SARMA. You must write Transunion at Transunion, P.O. Box 34012, Fullerton, CA 92834.â?

I have a problem with this. I have already disputed this with all three credit bureaus. Transunion (whom Ms. Stewart has already named as having the information on the collection) deleted this information from my credit report back on 3/14/02 as â??unverifiable.â? Then they reinserted the information sometime prior to 5/23/02, and when I questioned the reinsertion, they sent a letter that said that at first â??the source of your information did not respond to our investigation within the 30-day limitâ? and that I should â??contact the creditor directly.â? They then gave me SARMAâ??s address as contact information on this account. Equifax simply says they â??verifiedâ? the debt as belonging to me (back on 3/14/2002).

Transunion, whose name was given to me by a representative of SARMA, says that SARMA has this account. SARMA says that Transunion has this account. I do not have the patience to play â??pass the buck,â? and I know my rights under the law.

The thirty days (per my rights under the Texas Finance Code) have passed. The account is listed as a SARMA account. SARMA is listed as the furnisher of the information on all credit reports. And SARMA has not validated this account within the 30-day period under Texas Finance Code, although I have given ample time and notice. Since SARMA is unable to sufficiently validate this account, all collection efforts must cease, which means deleting the notation from my credit reports with all credit bureaus no later than five (5) days from today, per my rights under both the Texas Finance Code and the FDCPA.

I know that you are also aware that, per the FDCPA, you must note this account with the credit bureaus as being â??in dispute.â? This has NEVER been done, and it is also a violation of my rights.

Your failure to satisfy this request within the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Texas Finance Code will result in a complaint filed with the FTC, the Texas Attorney General, and my pursuit of further legal action.

Sincerely,