Need Any and All info on EOSCAR

These may help:

http://creditsuit.org/credit.php?/b...ng_instructions_for_creditors_and_collectors/

And for background on what goes wrong when it doesn't work:
http://www.naca.net/BennettFCRATestimony.pdf
(Bennett was the attorney in Johnson vs. MBNA, where MBNA failed to adequately investigate beyond a cursory check of their own erroneous computer records.)

 

Here is some discussion on bankersonline.com, from when it was introduced.

http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/197404/site_id/1#import
http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/386853/site_id/1#import

 

It would appear to have the same basic weakness that the system has had all along:

The consumer may send a dispute to the CRA, possibly even with additional documents. The CRA codes the dispute into one of a limited number of dispute types, and forwards it to the DF. The CRA generally will not make a change based on documents from the consumer directly, and the additional documents generally are not forwarded. An added summary may, or may not, be sent. The DF receives whatever the CRA sends with the dispute, and checks that.

The obvious problem, as seen in a number of litigated cases, is that the DF may not even receive sufficient information from the CRA to indicate that anything other than a cursory check of on-line records is needed.

http://www.proselitigant.net/wwwthreads/Wc59d0bd2d89b8.htm

The CRA takes no responsibility for the DF's errors, nor for forwarding sufficient information from the consumer dispute to allow the DF to correct errors due to discrepancies between on-line records and original documents. The DF takes no responsibility for responding to a dispute they never received.

This, despite the FCRA requirement that the CRA provide notice of the dispute to the data furnisher, including all relevant information received from consumer:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcradoc.pdf
"§ 611..Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C.§ 1681i ]
(a)Reinvestigations of Disputed Information
(1)Reinvestigation Required
(A)In general .Subject to subsection (f),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,or indirectly through a reseller,of such dispute,the
agency shall,free of charge,conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to
determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate 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 or reseller.
...
(2)Prompt Notice of Dispute to Furnisher of Information
(A)In general.Before the expiration of the 5-business-day period beginning
on the date on which a consumer reporting agency receives notice of a
dispute from any consumer or a reseller in accordance with paragraph (1),
the agency shall provide notification of the dispute to any person who
provided any item of information in dispute,at the address and in the
manner established with the person. The notice shall include all relevant
information regarding the dispute that the agency has received from the
consumer or reseller."

(What's relevant? If it didn't get corrected when it wasn't sent, and the proper correction would have been obvious if it had been sent, it must have been relevant.)

The cycle of irresponsibility continues, just more "efficiently" (i.e. at less cost to the CRA and DF). Litigation is a necessary part of forcing corrections.