How long does a CA have to report..

Bump bump bump

 

(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.

 

| How long does a CA have to report..

THE END ** *** ** LB 59
""""```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
Interesting clicks
http://www.ohiobarns.com/othersites/miscellaneous/oh/35-58miningshovel.html
http://www.ohiobarns.com/othersites/buildings/oh/35-45bigbasket.html

http://www.ohiobarns.com/othersites/wallmurals/ia/15-93calmar1.html

""""```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''

 

SnakeMan:

Under the FDCPA, as long as they don't report following the dispute, they don't need to report it...

HOWEVER, remember under the FCRA, they are required to notify the CRAs of any updates, including notice of dispute.. (Section 623 (a)(1), Section 623 (a)(3))

This is the schizophrenia of the two laws...

However, under the FCRA, its only actionable against the furnisher, *IF* you dispute the account through the CRA, and they still forget to mark the account in dispute. It's the CRA dispute that moves the violation from an a violation to a b violation, and only b violations are actionable by the consumer to the furnisher.

 

Basically, if the CA updates the listing after receiving the dispute, but doesn't notate the dispute ON THEIR OWN, its an (a) violation.

If the CA responds to a VERIFICATION request and updates the listing without notating the dispute, then its a (b) violation.

§ 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.
(b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute.
(c) Limitation on liability. Sections 616 and 617 [§§ 1681n and 1681o] do not apply to any failure to comply with subsection (a), except as provided in section 621(c)(1)(B) [§ 1681s].

Part (c) says that the CA/OC (Furnisher) can't be held civilly liable for violations that are only failing to provide accurate information, BUT they can be held civilly liable for providing the same inaccuracies when responding to a VERIFICATION request from the CRAs. That exclusion doesn't apply only in the case of if the state takes action on your behalf for the (a) violation.

§ 621. Administrative enforcement [15 U.S.C. § 1681s]

(c) State action for violations.

(1) Authority of states. In addition to such other remedies as are provided under State law, if the chief law enforcement officer of a State, or an official or agency designated by a State, has reason to believe that any person has violated or is violating this title, the State

(B) subject to paragraph (5), may bring an action on behalf of the residents of the State to recover

(i) damages for which the person is liable to such residents under sections 616 and 617 [§§ 1681n and 1681o] as a result of the violation;

(ii) in the case of a violation of section 623(a) [§ 1681s-2], damages for which the person would, but for section 623(c) [§ 1681s-2], be liable to such residents as a result of the violation; or

(iii) damages of not more than $1,000 for each willful or negligent violation; and

 

When the CA responded to the CRA and didn't notate the dispute, then it was a b violation, and subject to civil liability.

Consider that technically a furnisher could violate a every single month 3 times (one for each CRA), which would equal to $3,000.00 a month in damages under the FCRA.

Basically congress wanted to prevent someone from turning simple mistakes into cash cows... (even though the OCs/CAs do it all the time.)

Now, you still want to keep track of the a violations, you can use them to show that by the sheer number of a violations that the furnisher has demonstrated a pattern of willfully and knowingly violating the FCRA. -- and maybe, just maybe if the furnisher doesn't really grasp the concept that not all of their violations may be actionable, they may cave faster if you simply say, I have you in 21 violations of the FCRA. Instead of I have you in 3 violations of the FCRA. 21 would be the number of true violations, even though that only 3 of them would be actionable. (In that example 6 months of inaccurate reporting, and the 3 actionable offenses for reporting the inaccurate information after the verification request.)