I mailed a dispute by CRRR. EQ never returned the green card, but the USPS online delivery status says it was delivered at 8:47 am on 10-16-02 to EQ at P.O. Box 740256 in Atlanta, GA. By my calculation, the 30th day was 11-14-02. EQ's investigation results letter is dated 11-19-02, which is fine because of the 5 business day rule. EQ reported the following results of the investigation: ITEM A: Deleted ITEM B: Deleted ITEM C: Verified ITEM D: Updated & Corrected NOW HERE IS THE POTENTIAL VIOLATION: I pulled my CR online and have a CR dated 11-18-02 (Day #34) which reports the following: ITEM A: Still on report, no notice of being in dispute ITEM B: Still on report, no notice of being in dispute ITEM C: Has notation "Consumer Disputes, Reinvestigation In Process" ITEM D: Not yet updated & has notation "Consumer Disputes, Reinvestigation In Process" HERE ARE THE VIOLATIONS I SEE: ITEM A: Did not delete by 30th day or report that the item was in dispute ITEM B: Did not delete by 30th day or report that the item was in dispute ITEM C: Did not complete reinvestigation and record current status within 30 days ITEM D: Did not complete reinvestigation and record current status within 30 days I am looking for confirmation from the board that I do indeed have EQ on 4 violations of the FCRA before proceeding to small claims. Did I catch them? Thanks in advance for your opinion.
Did they delete the ones they said they did? If so, what is your purpose behind these "possible" violations? A day or two past the 30 day period is very minor and I think if you tried to sue them for that, you'd get no where.
LKH, Yes, they deleted Items A & B and I am very happy with that. My problem is that they wound up verifying Item C even though it is clear from their own accounting that the investigation was still in process on Day 34. FCRA 611 clearly states that the CRA will "record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file...before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer." From the way I read this, if they haven't verified the item within 30 days then it MUST be deleted. Therefore, since Item C was noted as being still under investigation on Day 34, they failed to verify within 30 days and MUST delete it! When you say that "a day or two past the 30 day period is very minor," are you saying that the CRA is in reality not being held to this 30-day period? I don't consider it minor at all that Equifax violated FCRA 611 by failing to either update the status or delete Item C by the end of the 30-day period, and the negative item is still on my credit report! I was hoping that board members would either confirm or dispute that the courts interpret the 30-day period under FCRA 611 as being exactly 30 days, meaning that on Day 31 they MUST delete if the item has not been verified by then. Also, it should be clear to you what my "purpose" is behind these "possible" violations. I want to document as many violations of FCRA as possible to use as leverage against the CRA for deletion of negatives. Since the members of this board have so much experience, I was hoping to receive confirmation that I either do or do not have a documented violation of FCRA in this instance. However, I think you are right in that I really only have one possible violation here, and that is the failure to delete Item C after expiration of the 30-day period. Thanks for your input, and I welcome more opinions as to whether this represents a violation of the FCRA. greenvan
Why should it be clear to me? Some people want money damages, others just want deletions, others want both.
Whether I go for money damages, deletions, or both (or deletion of all negatives in my file) depends on how many FCRA violations I can rack up in the next few months. However, the question still remains as to whether ITEM C represents a violation of the 30-day rule, and for some reason I'm not getting any creditnet opinions on this. Perhaps it is too late...I'll bump it for the day crowd.
Whether I go for money damages, deletions, or both (or deletion of all negatives in my file) depends on how many FCRA violations I can rack up in the next few months. However, the question still remains as to whether ITEM C represents a violation of the 30-day rule, and for some reason I'm not getting any creditnet opinions on this. Perhaps it is too late...I'll bump it for the day crowd.
Greenvan, because they signed for it on a certain day does not mean that the investigation was started on that day. Time of day, weekend and holidays are factors. If you go to court with cases like that, the judge is going to look at you funny. You may have them on violation, but you would need a stronger case than that. Based on what you post, they had every intent to follow the law. now if you can come up with more proof of negligence and you can show a partern then that would be different.
Let me try to explain this another way... Equifax is claiming that they took 30 days to investigate my dispute, and then another 5 days to report the results. On the surface, it appears that everything was done in accordance with the law. However, I have evidence to indicate otherwise and here it is: I pulled my own credit report on Day 34. I paid $9 for this report, and it is the same report that any merchant or creditor would have seen if they had pulled my consumer credit report on that date. This credit report clearly shows that the four items in question had not been updated or deleted as of Day 34, and by Equifax's own notation the reinvestigation of two items was still in process on Day 34! To me, this represents a clear violation of the 30-day rule under FCRA 611. I suspect that Equifax may be doing this to other people as well, meaning that they are actually taking 35 days to investigate your disputes instead of the legally mandated 30 days. To catch them at this, all you have to do is pull your credit report on Day 31 and see if the items you disputed have been updated or deleted as required by law. For additional evidence you could also pull your report on Day 33 or Day 34. This entire argument is based on the following assumption: the 30-day period BEGINS ON and INCLUDES the date that your dispute is DELIVERED to the Equifax post office box, regardless of when they actually get around to signing the green card and regardless of when they actually start the investigation. This is based on the wording of FCRA 611 which states "...before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer." Why would anyone on this board want to give the CRAs any leeway on the 30-day period, since it obviously works to our advantage? Why allow the CRA to "stall" by not signing the green card until a later date, not returning the green card, etc.? In this particular case my dispute was delivered to their P.O. Box on a Wednesday morning at 8:47 am, and I am counting that as Day #1. I don't know when they signed the green card because they never returned the green card to me. Since I don't want to be putting out misinformation on this board, I would really like some feedback for me and other newbies on whether the 30-day period is statutory and exactly when the 30-day period begins and ends. After all, I thought that the whole reason for CRRR was to document the date they receive our disputes and to start the 30-day clock. Now we have to deal with their stalling tactics such as not signing and returning the green cards!
Equifax beleives that they have 35 days for any dispute and not 30. They beleive that they have 5 days to enter it in their system and notify creditors. They repeatetly told me this over the phone (3 phone agents, 2 supervisors, and a manager). They are basing this information on section 611(a)(2)(a) of the FCRA. Don't ask me how they can interpret it that way. Yes it is a violation There was a thread about this same topic at the very end of December.
zhenya, Thanks for confirming that this is a violation just like I thought it was, and for directing me to the recent threads by both you and allen074 in December that also support this violation. If the FTC says "30 days and 30 days only" that's good enough for me! BTW, I noticed that LKH totally supported this and even said to sue them in your thread, but then told me that a few days past 30 was no big deal. I'm not trying to start a fight, and I certainly hope that LKH will continue to respond to my posts because I can certainly benefit from his experienced insight. However, a little consistency would be nice. greenvan
greenvan, i admire your mindset, more people on this board need it.. . but just have some patience. Realize that judges, if it gets that far, have a VERY different mindset and interpretation of the law than those on this board. it shouldn't be this way, but certain violations, hold more weight than others, due to caselaw, judge interpretation, etc. It's also good to have several different violations when going to court, to show a pattern, and/or if the judge feels one isn't strong enough to warrant punishment. Keep this is mind when you get input from someone. Also considering, you haven't posted as much, a "vet" will err on the side of caution when telling a "new" poster to go sue. As that process, can and does scare many people, old and new posters alike.
humblemarc, You are right in that I did not explain my intentions satisfactorily to LKH. I fully intend to file in small claims with a number of violations, both major and minor, and am currently in the process of simply documenting those violations for later use against the CRA. My goal anyway is to settle out of court for deletions. When I referred to these as "possible" violations, I simply wanted a vet to confirm that the situation I presented was in fact a violation of the FCRA. I am certainly not running off to court today... I will be posting additional situations in the near future and hope that vets will simply address whether or not the action committed by CRA/CA/OC constitutes a violation, and whether I currently have sufficient documentation of that violation (or if there is more legwork that I need to do). Anyway, thanks for the insight on how some violations hold more weight than others, and my apologies to LKH. greenvan
tmpd11298, I don't believe the CRA is required to do that, although some have apparently elected to do it on their own. However, if a consumer disputes an item directly with an OC, then the OC cannot report that information to the CRA without also reporting that the item is being disputed by the consumer (see FCRA 623(a)(3)). I believe this is correct, but perhaps someone else can vouch for it. greenvan
How did you check the website? I don't have a tracking # b/c it was on the actual green card...that I never got back. Can I find it on the Certified Receipt some where? Or should I contact the post office that I sent it from? Thanks.
Hi Greenvan, Don't forget to ask EFX for a procedural request for item C. These are generally worthless, especially on their own. But in the event you file in small claims over this, keep up with the paper trail.
Re: Re: Four violations by Equifax? This sheds different light on the subject. If you in fact do have other violations against them and this is just icing on top of the cake, then that is a different story. Again, depending on what the other violations are, and you said they are major and minor, then go for it. Going past the 30 day limit for investigations is a violation. But, and I don't recall the other thread I posted in, if that is the only violation, I would think hard about it before suing. Again, if its just another on top of a long list, then that is a different story. Good luck.
