I've had it with Experian... I submitted a dispute on my Capital One card because they were reporting the credit limit on my account as N/A. I attached a copy of my most recent billing statement as proof of my claim. Low and behold, I get the results today and they cannot verify the information and poof! the account is deleted from my report. What the hell?!? Can these people not read and understand what is put in front of them? Just another violation I will add to the suit I filed against Experian this week. Unruly
I don't think (for once) its Exp. I have read on this board and veterans, correct me if I'm wrong, but Cap 1 doesn't report the CL on the TL.. They only report the High Balance and Current Balance.
I think the credit bureaus will not accept your (consumer) documents as proof; they will try to verify your dispute with the original creditor. Crap One is notorious for not reporting credit limits; so IF (this is a big if) Experian tried to verify the credit limit with Crap One, and Crap One chose not to respond, then by law Experian has to delete the TL. Of course, Experian might have decided not to go to the trouble in the first place, and simply removed it. If it's the former case, Experian did nothing illegal; if it's the latter, and best of luck to you in proving that it is the latter, then Experian violated FCRA. -- lakpr
Cap 1 reports on my report every month even though the accounts are charged off. There is a good chance next month the account will show up. I might try what you did as a way to get deletions
I lost AMEX BLUE from EXPERIAN doing the same thing... N/A CREDIT LIMIT or $0 CREDIT LIMIT IS WRONG...CREDIT LIMIT WAS $15,500...POOF IT WAS GONE!!! NEVER RETURNED!!!
That is incorrect. If an acct is disputed as "credit limit incorrect" and the creditor does not respond, the cra is supposed to update the tradeline to reflect what the consumer said was correct, not delete the complete tradeline. They do this obviously, but, it is not the way the FCRA says it is to be done.
Thanks, that's what I thought LKH. My guess is that even if EXP changed the info as I requested and provided, it would get wiped out once Cap 1 updates next month. I filed against EXP on multiple FCRA violations this week. I'll add this to the arsenal. Unruly
I have a question for the credit bureau experts here since I know very little about credit bureaus. What law requires a consumer to give a reason why they demand that the credit bureaus verify a listing?
Re: Re: Jeez O Pete! I'll take a shot at this,from 611(3)(A) FCRA 3) Determination that dispute is frivolous or irrelevant. (A) In general. Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a consumer reporting agency may terminate a reinvestigation of information disputed by a consumer under that paragraph if the agency reasonably determines that the dispute by the consumer is frivolous or irrelevant, including by reason of a failure by a consumer to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information.
Re: Re: Jeez O Pete! Thanks for the reply. I am going to get as tricky as possible with any answers to my question and not because I want to start some dang fool fight or nothing like that. I have serious hopes of finding a way to nail credit bureaus for an infraction if at all possible and that is my one and only reason for getting picky so please bear with me and let us see what we might devise if anything. Another point I wish to make is that although I am not a newbie by a long shot as most well know but I honestly do not know all that much about credit bureaus other than what I can gather from posts here and elsewhere. I've not studied FCRA all that much because I simply stay as far away from the devils as possible. The "first bone of contention" is the word reinvestigation. Let us assume I am not demanding reinvestigation but this is my first demand. Now does your quote still apply? Second "bone" is this. Their listing is all the information they should need. So you give them the name and the account number and I tend to think I gave them sufficient information with which to investigate. Am I right or am I wrong?
Re: Re: Jeez O Pete! Bill, Thanks for asking this question! I spent last night reading the FCRA and was thrown off by the "reinvestigation" jargon. I could not locate any information regarding the "initial" investigation.
Re: Re: Jeez O Pete! However, I interpreted as this: § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (a) Reinvestigations of disputed information. (1) Reinvestigation required. (A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The report is deemed accurate when requested. If you dispute an item, it is "reinvestigated", thus the initial dispute. Does anyone else agree???
Re: Re: Jeez O Pete! There is no note of what is an initial investigation. This caught my eye in Sec. 611 as well shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, So, does the very placement of the TL constitute the investigation since the REinvestigation records the most current status? Sometime, a while back, Sassyinaz had a big discussion on this--I will try to find the thread.
Re: Re: Jeez O Pete! Nah! I just gotta disagree. (LOL) Seriously now then, Naturally, lots of times such things as this are looked at in the light most favorable to the person doing the looking. That can lead to misunderstanding of the law. I am going to look at it from my standpoint and not theirs and that can cause me problems too. Laws are not usually written to favor the viewpoint of one person over the other and we often fail to realize that leading to misconception. I can see where they would look at it the way you have stated. It is reasonable. But from my viewpoint it is the first time I disputed and I don't see it as a reinvestigation. I am demanding an investigation, not a reinvestigation. So from my perspective your quote don't apply. comments?
Re: Re: Jeez O Pete! Well, this is interesting. Read Sec. 623 of the FCRA That is duties of furnishers of info: It seems that Furnishers investigate, while CRA's reinvestigate. Here's a link to an opinion letter: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/cohan2.htm Yes. Section 611(a)(1) requires the consumer reporting agency, upon dispute by the consumer of the completeness or accuracy of any item of information, to "reinvestigate . . . and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file" if it cannot be verified within 30 days. Section 611(a)(2) requires prompt notice to the furnisher of information of a consumer dispute. The furnisher's responsibility to conduct an investigation of disputed information, imposed in Section 623, is a discrete requirement, separate from the CRA's obligation to record the current status or delete unverified information. Thus, if the furnisher fails or refuses to conduct an investigation (which may constitute a separate violation of the FCRA by the furnisher), the CRA must still comply with Section 611. Also, a bit OT, but there is mention of inquiries in this same letter, and now I think I know why CRA's refuse to reinvestigate them.
Re: Re: Jeez O Pete! Thanks Jlynn! I stayed up last night reading, re-reading and re-reading the FCRA so that I understood every sentence. I need FCRA for Dummies! LOL I am going to search and see if it has been disected in its entirety and not on a thread here or there.
Re: Re: Jeez O Pete! MS, FCRA for dummies LOL, have you looked at the opinion letters from the FTC? They should be incorporated as part of that book. Most are really helpful.
Re: Re: Jeez O Pete! JLynn, I am reading them now! I will tell you, I need to start the entire "credit for dummies" series. LOL
Re: Re: Jeez O Pete! I think jlynn has just about killed the goose that I had hoped would lay me a golden egg. (LOL) Anybody think jlynn is wrong?
