neither? Help please. An OC did not send proper validation, told me that they couldn't locate the account number, BUT then Verified with the CRA
An OC must comply with the FCRA. As I suggested in your other thread for this matter, I would send a copy of the "We are unable to locate this account." letter, to the CRA's that they verified with, explicitly stating that, if they are unable to locate this account, how could they have conclusively verified this account as being valid, in accordance with Johnson v. MBNA. Demanding an immediate deletion based on their illegal verification to the CRA dated after they claimed that they were unable to locate the account.
There is a post where I found the exact quotes in Johnson (and their LEXIS cites) if you want to get the CRA's attention, use the lexis cites when you quote Johnson... You may also want to hit the OC with a letter asking them, how they were able to conclusively verify as required by Johnson v. MBNA; which cost MBNA $90,300.00, when in writing your company admitted to me that they could not locate the alleged account. The quote from Johnson v. MBNA which mentions the judgement amount is a nice way to drop that bomb on them, if they think they could be out $90,300.00 for verifying when they told you otherwise, they may not verify it when they get asked again. Not sure which CRA they verified with, so not sure how easy it'll be to get a re-investigation for it... Only one is a pain, usually...
I tried to go to lexis to look some of it up, but I hit a brick wall. Could you give a girl a little connecting link to some verbiage? Thanks
The LEXIS cite is the same for both quotes... http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...id=58891&highlight=johnson+and+mbna+and+lexis
For the letter to the OC, you'll probably want to structure it like this. Put it into your own words, but this will give you an idea. I am deeply concerned at how your company could have allegedly verified the alleged account which you are reporting to CRA, in accordance with the FCRA, given that on XX/XX/XXXX, your company sent the following communication which explicitly stated that your company could not find any records for the alleged account which you are reporting to CRA (copy enclosed). Johnson quote #2 (The $90,300.00 quote - and note, I don't even underline the portion of it involving the amount, I am sure that sticks out enough as it is... basically, you're just pointing out, that you know in advance what their alleged defense would be, and that that alleged defense does not carry any weight, and MBNA by relying on that defense had to pay out $90,300.00 for the pleasure.) By your companies own admission on xx/xx/xxxx, your company could not have conclusively verified the information which you are reporting to CRA, because your company claims that it is unable to locate the alleged documentation for this alleged account. Therefore, in accordance with Johnson v. MBNA, your company was obligated to report to CRA that it was not able to conclusively verify the information which your company is reporting, and they were obligated to delete the account immediately from my credit file. Johnson quote #1 Your company failed to comply with federal law in this matter, and clearly did so willfully, and knowingly, given your companies communication to me on xx/xx/xxxx. I hereby am demanding in compliance with federal law, the immediate deletion of this alleged account from my credit reports. -- I would send a copy of that letter to the CRA when you send the dispute as well, as the letter from the OC to you. It'll take away the "they have previously verified, if you have any more disputes with this account, contact the data furnisher" card. With the CRA, you'll probably just want to use the second part of the letter. Something like... As you can from the documentation enclosed from the alledged data furnisher, they explicitly stated that they had no records of this alleged account, therefore, they could not have conclusively verified this account as required under Johnson v. MBNA. Johnson quote #1 As you can also see, the alledged data furnisher has been notified of such as well. Your company is required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to re-investigate this matter, in light of the data furnishers own admission that they do not have the information that they need to conclusively verify this matter, in accordance with federal law.
