Letter I received from TransUNION

Transunion's procedure for investigating disputed information is to contact, by mail or telephone, the source of the information. Each source is advised of your dispute and is requested to verify the accuracy and /or completeness of the information reported.

Once the verification responses are received, the disputed information is updated accordingly. Changes are reflected on the updated credit report that is sent to you ath the conclusion of our investigation. If you have any questions regarding the results of the investigation, please contact the creditor(s) directly "
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You filed suit?
Keep that and submit it as Exhibit "A"...

Read Richardson v Equifax and Cushman V Trans Union..

Both the cases CLEALRY say that simply verifying with the "source" is not a reasonable investigation!!!!

That letter ADMITS that is all they do!

Good luck.

 

2. Section 1681e(b) Claim

Under the FCRA, a consumer reporting agency must follow "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" regarding the information contained in a consumer's credit report. 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). A claim of noncompliance with section 1681e(b) "consists of four elements: (1) inaccurate information was included in a consumer's credit report; (2) the inaccuracy was due to defendant's failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy; (3) the consumer suffered injury; and (4) the consumer's injury was caused by the inclusion of the inaccurate entry." Philbin v. Trans Union Corp., 101 F.3d 957, 962 (3d Cir. 1996). In this case, Equifax apparently does not dispute that inaccurate information was placed in reports it prepared regarding the plaintiffs' credit history. However, Equifax does challenge the plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate the remaining three elements of a section 1681e(b) claim. The Court will address each disputed element in turn.

a. Reasonable Procedures [*11]

Equifax contends that it maintains reasonable procedures as a matter of law because it transcribed, stored, and communicated consumer information from Fleet, a source that it believed to be reliable and credible on its face. In addition, it argues that the plaintiffs cannot produce any proof that they caused Equifax to be notified that their credit history was being erroneously reported.

Section 1681e(b) mandates that agencies follow reasonable procedures in preparing consumer reports but "does not impose strict liability for inaccurate entries in consumer reports; the preparer is held only to a duty of reasonable care. The exercise of reasonable care is determined by reference to what a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances." Spence v. TRW, Inc., 92 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). In evaluating whether procedures are reasonable, courts also balance "the potential harm from inaccuracy against the burden of safeguarding against such inaccuracy." Stewart v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 734 F.2d 47, 50 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

The Court declines to say that relying on creditors for accurate credit information constitutes [*12] a reasonable procedure as a matter of law where, as here, the credit reporting agency had reason to know of the dispute between the plaintiffs and Equifax. See Bryant v. TRW, 689 F.2d 72, 77 (6th Cir. 1982) (where agency knew of dispute between consumer and creditors, confirming consumer's credit information with creditors constituted unreasonable procedure); Barron v. Trans Union Corp., 82 F. Supp. 2d at 1295-96. A credit reporting agency is initially entitled to rely on information contained in the reports issued by credit grantors, because it would be unduly burdensome and inefficient to require an agency to look beyond the face of every credit report. However, once notified that a consumer disputes the information contained in such records, exclusive reliance on such information is neither reasonable or justified. See Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280, 285 (7th Cir. 1994) (credit reporting agency entitled to rely on court dockets to correctly recite consumer's credit history absent notice that information is flawed); Gill v. Kostroff, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1161, Civ.A. 98-930- T17A, 2000 WL 141258, at *6 (M.D. Fla. 2000). Thus, "[a] [*13] credit reporting agency that has been notified of potentially inaccurate information in a consumer's credit report is in a very different position than one who has no such notice." Henson, 29 F.3d at 286.

In this case, the exhibits and affidavits show that the plaintiffs caused notices to be sent to Equifax regarding errors in their credit history on at least three occasions before Equifax prepared their credit report for BP Oil. Despite the communication of these notices, Equifax continued to rely exclusively on Fleet's version of the plaintiffs' credit history. In the Court's view, there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it was reasonable for Equifax to rely exclusively on the information provided by Fleet, given that Equifax knew or should have known that this information was unreliable or inaccurate. See Gill, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1161, 2000 WL 141258, at *7 (genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether defendant maintained reasonable procedures where plaintiff sent several notices to defendant, but defendant failed to correct reported errors).





All you have to do is a google search and it will come up..But just for the sake of others who may not look it up, this is an excerpt from richardson v equifax

 

Part of Cushman v trans Union









We now turn to the questions of a consumer reporting
agency's obligations pursuant to § 1681i(a) and a plaintiff 's
burden of proving a claim of negligent noncompliance with
that section. TUC contends that § 1681i(a) did not impose
on it an obligation to do any more than perform the
reinvestigation it performed in this case. That is, TUC
believes that when a consumer informs a consumer
reporting agency that information contained in her
consumer report is inaccurate, the consumer reporting

6
agency is obliged only to confirm the accuracy of the
information with the original source of the information.
According to TUC, it is never required to go beyond the
original source in ascertaining whether the information is
accurate.

This position has been rejected by the United States
Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits. See
Henson, 29 F.3d at 286-87; Stevenson v. TRW Inc., 987
F.2d 288, 293 (5th Cir. 1993). In Henson, a state court
judgment docket erroneously stated that an outstanding
judgment had been entered against the plaintiff. Two credit
reporting agencies included the erroneous entry on their
consumer reports regarding the plaintiff. See Henson, 29
F.3d at 282-83. The plaintiff sued those credit reporting
agencies pursuant to both § 1681e(b) and § 1681i. See id. at
284, 286. Section 1681e(b) requires consumer reporting
agencies "to follow `reasonable procedures to assure
maximum possible accuracy' of the information" contained
in the credit report. Id. at 284 (quoting 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681e(b)).

The Seventh Circuit upheld the district court's dismissal
of the § 1681e(b) claim. See id. at 285-86. However, the
court reversed the district court's dismissal of the § 1681i
claim, distinguishing between the duties imposed by the
two sections of the statute. It stated:

A credit reporting agency that has been notified of
potentially inaccurate information in a consumer's
credit report is in a very different position than one
who has no such notice. . . . [A] credit reporting agency
may initially rely on public court documents, because
to require otherwise would be burdensome and
inefficient. However, such exclusive reliance may not be
justified once the credit reporting agency receives notice
that the consumer disputes information contained in his
credit report. When a credit reporting agency receives
such notice, it can target its resources in a more
efficient manner and conduct a more thorough
investigation.

Id. at 286-87 (emphasis added).

7
The Fifth Circuit came to a similar conclusion in
Stevenson, 987 F.2d at 293. In that case, similar to the
situation here, the consumer's son had fraudulently
obtained accounts in the consumer's name. See id. at 291.
Other inaccurate information appeared on the credit report
as well. See id. The credit reporting agency sent written
forms to the credit granting agencies that had originally
supplied information concerning the consumer, and relied
on those credit grantors to make the conclusive
determination of whether the information was accurate. See
id. at 293. Holding that this was insufficient, the court
wrote: "In a reinvestigation of the accuracy of credit reports
[pursuant to § 1681i(a)], a credit bureau must bear some
responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information
obtained from subscribers." Id. (citing Swoager v. Credit
Bureau of Greater St. Petersburg, 608 F. Supp. 972, 976
(M.D. Fla. 1985)).

The court reasoned that such a result was the only one
consistent with the language of § 1681i(a), which requires
"that the `consumer reporting agency shall within a
reasonable period of time reinvestigate' and `promptly
delete' inaccurate or unverifiable information." Id. (quoting
15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)) (emphasis in Stevenson). The court
expressly rejected the same argument made here by TUC:
"that where fraud has occurred, the consumer must resolve
the problem with the creditor." Id. Rather, "[t]he statute
places the burden of investigation squarely on" the
consumer reporting agency. Id.

We agree with the conclusions reached by these courts.
We assume for the sake of argument, as the Seventh
Circuit concluded, that the costs of requiring consumer
reporting agencies to go beyond the original source of
information as an initial matter outweigh any potential
benefits of such a requirement. Thus, we can assume that
absent any indication that the information is inaccurate,
the statute does not mandate such an investigation.
However, as the Henson court explained, once a claimed
inaccuracy is pinpointed, a consumer reporting agency
conducting further investigation incurs only the cost of
reinvestigating that one piece of disputed information. In
short, when one goes from the § 1681e(b) investigation to

8
the § 1681i(a) reinvestigation, the likelihood that the cost-
benefit analysis will shift in favor of the consumer increases
markedly. Judgment as a matter of law, even if appropriate
on a § 1681e(b) claim, thus may not be warranted on a
§ 1681i(a) claim.

We also agree with the cogent observation by the Fifth
Circuit that the plain language of the statute places the
burden of reinvestigation on the consumer reporting
agency. See Stevenson, 987 F.2d at 293. The FCRA evinces
Congress's intent that consumer reporting agencies, having
the opportunity to reap profits through the collection and
dissemination of credit information, bear "grave
responsibilities," 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(4), to ensure the
accuracy of that information. The "grave responsibilit[y]"
imposed by § 1681i(a) must consist of something more than
merely parroting information received from other sources.
Therefore, a "reinvestigation" that merely shifts the burden
back to the consumer and the credit grantor cannot fulfill
the obligations contemplated by the statute.

In addition to these observations, we note that TUC's
reading of § 1681i(a) would require it only to replicate the
efforts it must undertake in order to comply with
§ 1681e(b). Such a reading would render the two sections
largely duplicative of each other. We strive to avoid a result
that would render statutory language superfluous,
meaningless, or irrelevant. See Sekula v. F.D.I.C., 39 F.3d
448, 454 n.14 (3d Cir. 1994); Pennsylvania Dept. of Public
Welfare v. United States Dept. of Health and Human Servs.,
928 F.2d 1378, 1385 (3d Cir. 1991).

 

Cra's have no obligation to "validate". It isn't up to a cra to provide you with any accounting of a debt. If you used that as your premise for a suit against a cra, you made a big mistake.

Collections agencies have an obligation under the FDCPA to prove the amount they are trying to collect, interest, where the charges came from, signed contract etc.

But in no way, shape or form is a cra obligated to provide you with that type of info.

 

lsmith

What LKH said is correct. Please tell me that you were reffering to the CA when you said you attempted validation multiple times.

If that is the case then you have a case. If not you could be in trouble.

Let me give you a for instance:

Say you tried to validate repeatedly. You sent CRRR letters several times and the CA hasnt done its part. During this process the CRA also verified the info which you disputed.
You then send your "proof" of the bogus account to the CRA's and dispute again.
The Cra's once again verify the info knowing you have prrof that the CA cannot validate.


Then you have a case.

If all you did was go to the CRA for "validation" you are not going to get the results you are looking for.

I just filed suit for the same thing. The difference is I actually have papers from 2 different "sources" of information who have admitted the incorrectness of the listing. I tried to tell the CRA's for 3 months and they wouldnt listen.
WHY? The source kept telling them to do it. Despite my efforts they continued. When I wrote the Attorney general only then did the sources investigate and find they had made a mistake.

If the CRA's would have done a "proper" investigation they would have uncovered the same things!


I would talk to an attorney and see what he thinks if I were you.

Good luck.

 

Cushman v trans Union is my life story....this is good stuff.

 

Well, rumor has it that once they get served they tend to settle. Thats a good thing. If they do not and you take them to court make sure you admit the other credit reports as evidence. It helps your case..While we all know the others do not investigate the judge may not..
"Your honor, EQ and EXP upon conclusion of their legitimate investigations promply deleted the accounts per FCRA...(yada yada).."



I was just worried for a second. I thought you attmepted "validation" through TU. It appears you ave given them a chance to fix it. The only thing I owuld have done differetnly is I would have sent TU copies of my certified receipts showing my attempts to settle the matter with the CA.

It may be a non-factor but I think it would show my "good faith" in trying to fix the matter.

 

Well, rumor has it that once they get served they tend to settle. Thats a good thing. If they do not and you take them to court make sure you admit the other credit reports as evidence. It helps your case..While we all know the others do not investigate the judge may not..
"Your honor, EQ and EXP upon conclusion of their legitimate investigations promply deleted the accounts per FCRA...(yada yada).."



I was just worried for a second. I thought you attmepted "validation" through TU. It appears you ave given them a chance to fix it. The only thing I owuld have done differetnly is I would have sent TU copies of my certified receipts showing my attempts to settle the matter with the CA.

It may be a non-factor but I think it would show my "good faith" in trying to fix the matter.

 

I sent a request to the CA they had listed 7 accounts on my credit report from one company 4 of them reporting bad history.
1* I told the CA that I have had only 3 accounts with you in my lifetime and 4 accounts r not mine.
2*TU refuses to saying they verified
lsmith15=========
======
1*why did you admit this to them?
2*Did you send the CA a validation for each of the 7?

The END** *** **LB 59

 

I sent a request to the CA they had listed 7 accounts on my credit report from one company 4 of them reporting bad history.
1* I told the CA that I have had only 3 accounts with you in my lifetime and 4 accounts r not mine.
2*TU refuses to saying they verified
lsmith15=========
======
1*why did you admit this to them?
2*Did you send the CA a validation for each of the 7?

The END** *** **LB 59

 

I sent a request to the CA they had listed 7 accounts on my credit report from one company 4 of them reporting bad history
lsmith15
=============
Wrong all 7 of them are Negitive accounts.


THE END ** *** ** LB 59

 

voided