I have posted regarding my ongoing saga with CSC (EQ) regarding my DH's and my CH 13 bk. Here is the history in a nutshell: His bk was deleted 2.5 years ago through dispute. Mine was deleted after an UGLY battle with CSC that involved an "overlooked/clerical error" on their part. Bad part was that after the clerical error regarding my bk dispute, someone in the legal dept spent a lot of time on the phone with the bk court getting the public record to read 100% perfectly. Of course, their research was futile. It occurred on day 49 of the investigation. What they did turn up in that conversation with the bk court was the fact that the bk was JOINT with my DH. They reinserted on his report. I sent the reinsert letter, they deleted. They reinserted on my report. I sent the letter, they deleted. This back and forth has now gone on 4 reinserted/deleted times each for DH and I. Finally, it was reinserted for the FIFTH time on both of our reports 2 days ago. Sure enough we got a letter in the mail each yesterday (with a CRRR copy to follow) from the CSC legal dept. reading: "This is to notify you that the info you previously disputed has been reinserted into your credit file with CSC. The furnisher of the info has certified that the info is complete and accurate. The furnisher of the info is: U. S. Bk court Address Phone # I immediately called the bk court at the number listed. The clerk said "no, we furnish bk info to no one. They collect it through public data warehouses." Can CSC claim that the bk court FURNISHED them this info? If they contract with a 3rd party to gather the data, does that satisfy the definition of a furnisher under the FCRA? Also, I HIGHLY doubt that anyone (inc a 3rd party) furnished CSC with this data for both of us on the same day. I think the legal dept stuck the whole issue in a file and issued a letter/reinserted the bk in a premeditated fashion. Am I just out of luck or am I right to smell a rat?
Get them to provide that in writing (unfortunately providing a false and misleading statement isn't carried over from the FDCPA.) However, they are required to provide the information for their data furnisher. Look for Butch's post on DEMAND PROCEDURES! Demand procedures, and specifically demand the name, address, and phone number for their data furnisher. They'll probably just supply the court again, but its always worth the shot that they'll get a fit of honesty... If you have in writing that That's funny, the BK court says THEY DIDN'T PROVIDE that information, I want the *REAL* furnisher of the information revealed. Unfortunately, you will probably have fun getting them to admit who the real furinisher is. But with it in writing that the FURNISHER which they are CLAIMING it is, is not providing them with the information, at least you have a legitimate reason as to WHY it was not correctly previously investigated.
1*Can CSC claim that the bk court FURNISHED them this info? 2*If they contract with a 3rd party to gather the data, does that satisfy the definition of a furnisher under the FCRA? 3*I think the legal dept stuck the whole issue in a file and issued a letter/reinserted the bk in a premeditated fashion. 4*Am I just out of luck or am I right to smell a rat? LisaMc ================= 1*No 2*3rd party is the furnisher not court. 3*Seems so to me to. 4*You smell a rat-demand the name and contact info for the 3 rd party from the CRA. or it's off to suit city.
Lets suppose, for grins, that CSC actually comes clean about who the furnisher of the info is. Lets assume that they actually reply to a procedural request with some useful information and reliable contact data. Can a third party certify the 100% accuracy and completeness of the bk listing? Also, I read both mine and DH's matching 5 day letters several times. Today, I decided to look at the printouts they sent with it. On both of our reports, the new/improved/certified perfect in every way public record lists the wrong filing date for both of us!
