I have a question regarding Experian's refusal to reinvestigate a chargeoff on my report. I am using Lexington, and going through the second round of challenges. I just recieved notice today from Experian that they would not investigate 2 items requested as they were "previously investigated." Any one else with the same experience. Any ideas on how I can get Experian to take my dispute seriously?
RE: Refusal by CRA to investig One thing that worked for me is to wait 2 to 3 months in between disputes, especially with experian. It's not going to be easy but dont give up! Alex. www.Creditinsiders.com
RE: Refusal by CRA to investig I received both my equifax and experian report online last week. I can't remember which report it was, but it listed the dates that items were disputed last. That might be the new way to track the last dispute. The statement actually says "verified 6/00" or whatever the date was.
RE: Refusal by CRA to investig You're correct Kim, they keep track of all this, that's why it's a good idea to to wait a while to redispute an item. ALex www.Creditinsiders.com
RE: Refusal by CRA to investig I've worked with Lexington (as an advisor) for the last seven years. When a credit bureau refuses to reinvestigate, it means that the dispute came in before their "coded period" had elapsed. In other words, each CRA has a time set before which they won't reinvestigate the disputed item. Lexington pushes that envelope and sometimes gives the redispute a try even though they know they're hitting up against the coded period. It doesn't hurt anything and it doesn't cost you any more (though it costs them a bit.) The solution is to dispute it again until it passes the coded period or gets admitted by the CRA anyway. (And that's exactly what Lex will do.) By the way, coded periods vary depending on the CRA and vary depending on their internal policy at the moment. Generally, it's around 90 days.
RE: Refusal by CRA to investig Jason, that was very good information. The following questions are to anyone that may be able to answer... Is there anything in their FCRA that ALLOWS them to refuse to reinvestigate a previously disputed item? On the contrary, is there anything specifically in the FCRA that DOESN'T allow them to refuse to reinvestigate an "alleged" previously disputed item? How can they PROVE that it was previously disputed, except for their internal records? Do they keep copies of letters or record phone calls? A reply would be greatly appreciated.
RE: Refusal by CRA to investig dispute it again, but this time give it a DIFFERENT REASON why the item is inaccurate!
RE: Refusal by CRA to investig You ask some technical/legal questions. It's important to note, however, that these questions aren't really very important to the repair of your credit. You see, it doesn't really matter what the credit bureaus are required to do by law. The only way to enforce the law against a particular credit bureau would be to gather 10,000 of your closest friends and file a class-action lawsuit against the bureau. After a year or two in court, you may actually get them to handle your dispute as they should. But, the good news is that you can still work within their systems to get results. As the other person who posted said, just dispute it again in a month or two. Specifically in answer to your questions: Yes, the credit bureaus can refuse to reinvestigate your dispute if they have reason to believe that your dispute is "frivolous or irrelevant." The definition of "frivolous or irrelevant" is left largely to them. Typically, they consider a dispute that follows closely a previous reinvestigation to be "frivolous." I'm sure that the credit bureau could prove that the item was previously disputed, though I'm sure they haven't kept copies of letters or phone calls. If you (and your 10,000 friends) pressed them on this issue in court, they would probably just demonstrate that they typically handle the dispute in a certain way and that they must have handled it that way in your case as well. The judge and jury would probably be satisfied with that explanation. Again, it's a bummer that you can't really march in to court and nail them for not following a reasonable interpretation of the law. However, it's a good thing that they're a lumbering bureaucracy that leaves lots of opportunity for your credit to be repaired. Now, one caveat to this conversation: If you're credit listings are truly in error (ie. they're not yours) then you can take all these details - these refusals to reinvestigate etc. - and prove that the credit bureaus acted in bad faith. If that's the case, you could be building up a killer settlement (if you can find a local attorney with the guts to take them on.)
