It would be there burden in court to prove that they did not furnish the other CRA with the Paid Never Late Notation. I don't have to show how the CRA verified I only have to show when it was reported and what is being reported on my credit reports. GMAC is clearly the furnisher of any information contained on the credit reports and it is there burden to prove what they are reporting as being accurate and correct. In either case they cannot say that one report is correct without the other report contradicting their claim. In either senario they lose because they are reporting different information on 2 different reports. If they claim the CRA is at fault after the CRA contacted them 4 times this past year, then they need to bring proof to court that the CRA is wrong and is the furnsiher of this incorrect information. This still does not explain why they still have not listed the account as in dispute when it is clearly communicated to them that I am in dispute. How are they gonna explain this? TAC
What if they say that the CRA's never contacted them for an update so it is the CRA reporting something different than GMAC gave them? Wouldn't it have been safer to sue the CRA's and GMAC and let them come into court and squabble to the judge who is wrong? That would eliminate that argument up front since your beef is the inconsistent reporting. Then the judge could decide who is wrong and make them correct the error. Otherwise, he may say you have sued the wrong party. What if GMAC comes in and says Your honor, we were never contacted by the CRA's to update this file. Secondly, the correct reporting is the multiple lates and here is our proof of it. Had the CRA's contacted us we would have provided it to them. We do not know why the CRA's are reporting different information than we have provided nor can we be held liable for their errors. We also notified the CRA's prior to this suit being filed the account was in dispute (didn't your earlier post say they had done this) so there is no cause of action against us. He needs to remedy this with the CRA's who are reporting incorrectly. I'm not trying to knock your case. Just playing devil's advocate. I hope you succeed and I do hope that by these questions being asked you are better prepared to counter if they do use those excuses. I think this is why some of the earlier suggestions were that if you had proof the lates were wrong it would help your case. You could then counter the above GMAC argument that the information GMAC has is incorrect and they are in fact reporting incorrect information irregardless of the CRA's violations of the law. I'm just trying to give constructive criticism by asking what I would if I were the Judge or arguing for GMAC.
Tac, This may be old news but these two things jumped out at me: Shortly after that I get a letter from GMAC stating they stand by the information they report and to take it up with the CRA's. and from BurbsGuy: "We have no way of telling how thorough the verification processes are for each account by each CRA. I don't think the judge is going to buy "Look at my other reports". However, I'm glad to see you're not rolling over for GMAC. I'm very curious as to why they can't provide the specific late payment info. " Once you send a dispute notice to the creditor and dispute with the CRA's, if that information is updated or changed, your butt is covered, all subsequent reports from each of the CRA's should be reporting the same. The Judge absolutely should consider the other reports, says me, if you follow the dispute procedures, they are required as information providers to update ALL CRA's they provided information to (see the blue text below), not just the one you initiated a dispute with. It doesn't matter if you know or don't know how thorough the verification processes are with the CRA's; that's not our problem. There's no way they can maintain accuracy if after disputing all CR's from each of the CRA's aren't reporting the same information. And, if you disputed with all the CRA's, so much the better. Sassy § 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. (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. 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. (b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute. (1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall (A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information; (B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant tosection 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i]; (C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and (D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis. And this: What if GMAC comes in and says Your honor, we were never contacted by the CRA's to update this file. Secondly, the correct reporting is the multiple lates and here is our proof of it. Had the CRA's contacted us we would have provided it to them. We do not know why the CRA's are reporting different information than we have provided nor can we be held liable for their errors. We also notified the CRA's prior to this suit being filed the account was in dispute (didn't your earlier post say they had done this) so there is no cause of action against us. He needs to remedy this with the CRA's who are reporting incorrectly. That's not our problem either. We don't have to figure who is doing what to who -- the FCRA assumes we're all doing what we are supposed to do and playing fair in good faith. Tac would have no reason to think that the information was from anyone other than the OC. All Tac has to do is prove that he disputed. Also on the lates, the CRA's can't report anything that isn't verifiable -- that puts it back on GMAC to provide the accounting and maintain the accounting.
Tac, I'm curious about this I do, I have a certified and notorized letter from the mortgage broker stating such. Did the mortgage broker calculate the differences for you or give you percentages based on scores or what? I'd be interested in the details but after you're finished with court. I wouldn't want anything here to hurt you, or be forwarded, before you get in front of the judge. Sassy
I think I misunderstood the intent of the suit on my first reading, Tac. Yes, it sure looks like they're reporting either inaccurate or incomplete information, or both. Have they given you any reason for failing to provide the actual dates to prove your payments were late? Maybe my comments were a little off topic. I was just saying that a deletion/update by a CRA doesn't necessarily mean they Actually rec'd updated info from an OC. They may have made the change on their own due to time, annoyance at repeated disputes or plain old goodwill. Did they update because an investigation proved the assertations were valid or did they just update for no reason? I've repeatedly had items deleted or updated by 2 CRAs and not the 3rd (usually EX). My comments were really aimed at "Is GMAC the culprit or is it the CRA?". It sounds to me like GMAC has Never contacted a CRA with valid data since your dispute, you got lucky with two CRAs and EX has Never actually investigated with GMAC. I hope this doesn't place any derogs back on your CRs. And I'd be very interested to know if GMAC magically pulls payment dates out of their hat when they're in court. Good luck !!
I disputed with all of the CRA's a total of 4 times. Each time I received the "results" paper back from the CRA stating the results. You can also clearly see in the tradeline where it says "Date Last Reported", this always coincides with the dates that I last disputed and when GMAC was contacted. I don't know if GMAC or the CRA is changing or reporting the wrong info. I received a letter stating that GMAC is reporting this information along with their name, address and phone number. If GMAC claims the CRA is making up the information on it's own then they'd better have competent proof to prove it, otherwise I can only rely on the tradeline and that GMAC is the furnisher of the incorrect information. GMAC will not provide validation for the lates or the account, even though under the FCRA they don't really have to. I can say to the judge though as well as the judge seeing it in my letter...."Please provide me with competent proof of the information you are reporting to the CRA's about me". GMAC can only reply that it stands by the information it reports and that's it. They have also failed to communicate the debt as in dispute and they wrote me a letter stating that since the debt it paid they do not have to list the account to the CRA's as in dispute??? Hello!!! They are reporting it and continue to report and list it for 7 years they do have to list it with the CRA's as in dispute!! Thanks for the help! Tac
Looks like GMAC is up to the same type stuff again! Smith v. GMAC - Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. CV-776152 . GMAC has not stopped this practice! I will soon be contacting an Attorney myself to look into handling a new Law Suit Against GMAC in the State of Oklahoma for inadequate post-repossession notice and after 5 years past the date my car paid off has added an additional $5,874.83 past the amount I have already paid for the car. I have not had the car since 2004 and I too have had a divorce since then. I believe GMAC is up to illegal practices again and now is using tax payer dollars thru a bailout to do it. I do not recommend doing business with GMAC they are crooks and historically been engaged in illegal repossession practices on cars that should be paid off. They target people with past credit history problems. The whole story is on All Business.
First of all, you may have a delinquency balance that you still owe. You need to make sure that you know what your state's laws say. It may be that you still owed a balance after they sold the car, and they are adding interest. So before filing suit, make sure you don't have a problem that will come back to bite you.
