OC violation yet or not?

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by crowmom, Aug 5, 2003.

  1. crowmom

    crowmom Well-Known Member

    Disputed TL w/ OC after EX 'verified'. got green card back from OC. Looked at Experian (CreditExpert) today, and TL is NOT listed as "in dispute". Is this already a violation? Did the OC have to IMMEDIATELY list their TL as "in dispute" when they received my letter? or do they get a few days? When can i say I definitely have a violation on these creeps?

  2. tiger00

    tiger00 Well-Known Member

    The plan is to dispute with the CRA after the green card comes back from the OC/CA from validation. The reasoning here is that the OC/CA has received the validation request, and the dispute to the CRA forces the CRA to check with the OC/CA (I know, it doesn't happen) to find out the status, and if the OC/CA says that it's reporting the same as always then you have the violation, as they did not report the correct status of "in dispute."
  3. crowmom

    crowmom Well-Known Member

    I understand all that, but...

    I started on this TL before I discovered this site (and the correct way to do things) and disputed w CRAs 3x already. 1st dispute was online, 2nd was snail mail as 'not mine', and 3rd was snail mail again, this time with a letter from the OC proving the account wasnt mine. I'm afraid if I dispute again, I'll get a 'sorry we already investigated that' response from the CRA, so I'm trying to go thru the OC again. I sent the OC the 'original creditor validation' sample letter and this part:

    "I am requesting that you notify all of credit bureaus that this account is â??disputedâ? or that you delete this account until this matter is resolved. This is required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act."

    is what i was referring to in my first post. My question is, how long do they have to list it as 'in dispute'? is it supposed to be immediate? thanks.
  4. tiger00

    tiger00 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: OC violation yet or not?

    Why let them know what they should already know?!?! It's their job to know the FCRA and that they need to report the account as "in dispute". The account should be listed as "in dispute" as soon as the verification from the CRA is completed. Your hope is that they DON'T report it as "in dispute" as this is a violation. The CRA must investigate, or they are in violation as well.
  5. crowmom

    crowmom Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: OC violation yet or not?

    Exactly. I thought the same exact thing when I read that sample letter. Why help them do their jobs? I knew I wanted them to screw up, so I omitted the part that i quoted above.

    ("I am requesting that you notify all of credit bureaus that this account is â??disputedâ? or that you delete this account until this matter is resolved. This is required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.")

    I only used it in my post because I simply want to know if they've violated or not. I guess they have.
  6. tiger00

    tiger00 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: OC violation yet or not?

    In your original post you stated that you sent the dispute letters first (3x's to be exact), and then you sent your validation request. The point that you have not made clear is if in your last round of letters was it the dispute that went first, and then you sent the validation letter? If you sent the dispute letter first and then the validation letter then this isn't the right order. The OC isn't on notice yet when you were disputing, so they wouldn't report back as "in dispute." That's why you need to request the validation first, then dispute, as the OC will be contacted by the CRA for a current status.

    So did you or didn't you? I'm sorry to sound argumentitive, but it's not very clear as to what you have or haven't done. Either you sent the dispute letter first, or you didn't. If you did send a validation letter either you disputed with the CRA's AFTER the validation letter arrived at the OC or you didn't. As well, either you added the clause above to your validation letter to the OC or you didn't. From what you have said here, to me it seems that you sent the dispute first, then the validation letter, and now you think it's a violation. If you have not disputed with the CRA after the validation request was received by the OC then there is no violation as the OC probably hasn't updated with the CRA as they would really have no reason to do so. Just the mere fact that you requested a validation doesn't prove the violation if you haven't requested the CRA to check with the OC i.e. dispute.

    Help us all out here and tell us exactly what it is that you did, as that is the only way that you will get a correct answer.
  7. crowmom

    crowmom Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: OC violation yet or not?

    ok heres exactly what i did:

    1. applied for a loan, was denied, got a copy of my reports, and saw an incorrect TL.

    2. disputed w CRAs and in the meantime...

    3. called the OC and said 'theres a TL on my reports thats not mine'. they said "oh, youre right, its not yours, we'll fix it." it came off 2 reports, but its still on Exp.

    4. Disputed online w/exp as 'not mine' (that was the 2nd dispute)

    5. Exp verified, of course.

    6. I called OC again, and they agreed to send me a letter so i could use it as proof.

    7. Disputed w Exp again (3rd time) as not mine, snail mail, sent letter from OC as proof, and still the account 'remains'.

    8. discovered this site.

    9. sent a procedure request to Experian.

    10. AFter reading hundreds, if not thousands, of posts, come to the conclusion that i should have disputed the account directly (in writing) w the OC at some point, so thats what i recently did.

    11. got green cards back today from Exp (procedure request letter) and OC (account dispute letter.)

    12. I know i've read here somewhere that if I dispute an account with an OC, they have to report it as in dispute with the CRAs, whether I've disputed w the CRAs or not. am i wrong?

    btw, heres the letter i sent the OC:

    Dear Sir/Madame:

    This is a formal dispute of the above referenced account. I am formally requesting that you delete all tradeline notations you have submitted to Experian Credit Reporting Agency, in my name, John Smith, for the above referenced account number. I was promised (over the phone and in writing) that my name would be removed from this account and the trade line would be removed from ALL of my credit reports. However, even after 60 days, you are still reporting inaccurate information to Experian. This is a blatant violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. I have called Experian, and they blame YOU for this mistake. Do not insult my intelligence by telling me that this is somehow Experianâ??s fault, because credit reporting agencies only report what creditors tell them to report. You can blame them, and they can blame you, but it is not my job to make sure either of you follows the law.

    For the record, I will state once again that this is not my account. It never was. I never applied for credit with you and I have never used this credit card for any purchase. Since you cannot provide competent evidence that I had or have some contractual obligation to you, I hereby lawfully demand that this trade line be removed from my Experian Credit Report as soon as possible.

    Please be aware that you have 30 days from the tracked and confirmed delivery of this lawful notice to remove the associated negative trade line notations from my Experian report. Any other action may constitute evidence of your intent to abridge one or more of my civil or other constitutional rights. Please be further advised that continued unsubstantiated reporting of inaccuracies to third parties may provide a basis for criminal complaints being filed in accordance with FDCPA, FCRA, and other federal statutes.

    I look forward to a timely and amicable resolution to this matter.

    Sincerely yours,

    john smith

    Am I missing something here? Are you saying I need to dispute again with Experian? this would be the 4th dispute in 90 days.

    btw, I'm not trying to argumentative either, but my objective isnt really to get them to screw up and violate....I just want this TL GONE.
  8. merlin

    merlin Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: OC violation yet or not?

    If your TL is, in fact, being reported incorrectly I think you are focusing on a secondary violation (not reporting it "in dispute"). The violation that you probably should be addressing is the reporting of inaccurate information that is known to be inaccurate.

    At this point, you might want to send an ITS to both the OC and the CRA based upon the inaccuracy of the TL. You have exercised due diligence in getting the inaccurate info removed and at this point, it would seem that you could argue willful non-compliance (this is, of course, an uneducated opinion).

    Having the TL marked as "In Dispute" isn't going to help you as much as getting the inaccurate info removed.

    Good luck!
  9. tiger00

    tiger00 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: OC violation yet or not?

    I'm in agreement with Merlin, as the primary issue is the TL not reporting correctly. But, as long as your at it, you may as well find out what else they aren't doing per FCRA requirements as well. So, to answer point #12, yes, they are required to report the TL as "in dispute." The problem is that unless they are forced to provide an update to the TL then it probably won't appear magically on your reports. That is why I said that you need to dispute again with the CRA, as the CRA now must recover the current status of the account from the OC. In simple terms, you've told the OC there is a problem (validation) but the OC won't tell the CRA unless the CRA asks (the dispute).

    While the ITS might force the OC to drop the TL the problem here is how the court might interpret the evidence. From what I've gathered here on the board, the validation sequence is designed for two purposes 1) to ensure that the debt is valid and reporting correctly and 2) it provides documented evidence of the OC's non-compliance should the matter escalate to the courtroom.

    Let's assume that crowmom sends the ITS and it ends up making it to court. Between the summons and the court date the OC could just update the status, say that it took a little time in the system, and that there really is no case now because it's reporting the right way. But, if crowmom decides to press the validation/dispute route, and the OC still updates prior to going to court she can show that she has had willful non-compliance because she has sent 3 validation requests, disputed several times, and the OC still did not follow the FCRA. I'm not a judge, but the term "preponderance of evidence" is what I'm thinking is the rationale here.
  10. johnnyjc

    johnnyjc Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: OC violation yet or not?

    Your situatuion is much more simpler and I had recent experience wih EXP with the same matter. Received a letter from an OC (verizon wireless) stating that the account was not mine and faxed it to Exp and TU with a sharply worded ITS letter (i.e. how did you guys verify 4 times blah blah, negliegent duty under the FCRA, you got 3 business days to correct). Both came off in 1 day.
  11. crowmom

    crowmom Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OC violation yet or not?

    GOOD! Now I can use that in my ITS letter.

    I think that paragraph needs to be plastered somewhere on this site for all to see. Some people (especially newbies like me) need things explained to them in 'simple terms' lol.

    You've explained things extremely well. I've been reading like crazy here for the last 2 months, putting things together as best i can, and feeling like i'm learning a lot, but some things were still fuzzy. Now I 'get' it. No one really spelled it out like that. I understand things much better now. Thank you very much. I'm off to dispute again w Exp.

Share This Page