I've asked before and I've seen other's ask before but I can't find a YES or NO answer.... If you dispute with a CRA the status of late payments and the CRA ends up deleting JUST the late pays and NOT the tradeline and then say 4 months later the OC updates and sticks the late pays back on is THAT reinsertion? Or is it just reinsertion if the WHOLE tradeline was deleted? I disputed an account on EQU as "never late" about 6 months ago and since then it said paid as agreed never late (no lates showing), a month ago it's showed as 1x's 30 1x's 60, I disputed immediately (via CW) and now it shows as "verified", the lates stay.
KHM, I know you know what it says but I needed to copy it so I could get my brain around it. It reads to me like any single piece of information that was deleted or updated based on a re-investigation that is later re-inserted, is indeed a reinsertion. It reads to me that you can dispute any piece of information or all the information, it doesn't have to be one or the other. Otherwise it would say we were allowed to dispute the tradeline itself and the tradeline itself would be subject to updating or deletion -- that's not true because we can dispute the information within the tradeline and have it updated or deleted, as you did, without the entire thing having been previously deleted. That you previously disputed the late pays as never late, and they updated it to show it was never late, means that they verified you indeed were never late, otherwise they should have deleted instead of updating. That some piece of information was deleted as a result of a previous reinvestigation is the important part -- if that piece of information, previously deleted, is now showing back up, I think you should have gotten the notice of reinsertion and could request the required certification. Says me. Sassy "If the completeness or accuracy of ANY ITEM of information... "...record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file..." "...of ANY information disputed by a consumer, an ITEM OF THE information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete THAT ITEM of information from the consumer's file or modify THAT ITEM of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation. § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (a) Reinvestigations of disputed information. (1) Reinvestigation required. (A) In general. 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 of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge 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. (5) Treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable information. (A) In general. If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) of any information disputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the consumer's file or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation. (B) Requirements relating to reinsertion of previously deleted material. (i) Certification of accuracy of information. If any information is deleted from a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph (A), the information may not be reinserted in the file by the consumer reporting agency unless the person who furnishes the information certifies that the information is complete and accurate. (ii) Notice to consumer. If any information that has been deleted from a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph (A) is reinserted in the file, the consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer of the reinsertion in writing not later than 5 business days after the reinsertion or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by any other means available to the agency. (iii) Additional information. As part of, or in addition to, the notice under clause (ii), a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer in writing not later than 5 business days after the date of the reinsertion (I) a statement that the disputed information has been reinserted; (II) the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available, or of any furnisher of information that contacted the consumer reporting agency, in connection with the reinsertion of such information; and (III) a notice that the consumer has the right to add a statement to the consumer's file disputing the accuracy or completeness of the disputed information. (C) Procedures to prevent reappearance. A consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to prevent the reappearance in a consumer's file, and in consumer reports on the consumer, of information that is deleted pursuant to this paragraph (other than information that is reinserted in accordance with subparagraph (B)(i)).
I'll take another shot at it KHM, I have been trying to get this question answered, or at least get someone to be in agreement with me for months. From the Kosmerl/FTC opinion letter "...commencement-of-delinquency date mandated by Section 605(c)(1) on an account where the chargeoff or collection ("item of information") was first reported to the CRA ("added to the ... file") prior to that date..." From the FCRA: "...of ANY information disputed by a consumer, an ITEM OF THE information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete THAT ITEM of information from the consumer's file or modify THAT ITEM of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation." In the FTC opinion letter acknowledges that a mere date alone is an item of information. When a CRA changes the way ANY detail is reported (or not reported) such as dates, amounts, they are inadvertently acknowledging what constitutes an 'item of information".
Re: I'll take another shot at it hmmmmm, I agree with you Queenie! I thinking they must delete at the point of reinvestigation an entire tradeline, even if you've disputed just one portion of the tradeline as being inaccurate, because they get no response. If a creditor doesn't respond at all, seems they assume nothing can be verified, no matter what you disputed specifically. With no response, instead of deleting JUST what you disputed, which could turn a bad tradeline into a good one, they just delete the whole thing to get even with you for having dared to ask. They are such slackers and bent on making it difficult to impossible to really have an accurate history. Responding to us is a nuisance for them and I think they take every opportunity and twisting of words to make sure we don't forget it. It's like, here you go, deleted the WHOLE thing, snicker snicker, no good tradeline for you, backatcha. I can almost here them squealing in their cubicles! Sassy
When I disputed with CSC a tradeline, I said that it was an incorrect payment history. This doesn't mean that the tradeline is not mine, just means the history is not accurate. So I believe it is definetely a re-insertion.
Thanks guys, it's what I thought but I wanted more opinions on it. NOW where do I go with it? I also have EQU for changing my 120 day late deal, made with Mr Cooke, to a paid charge off. Should I just send a "dunning" letter saying delete NOW or "suffer the consequences" (LOL)?? BTW, when they changed the paid as agreed to a late pay, it only lowered my score 1 point. It was almost 2 years ago.
Re: I'll take another shot at it I've had it go both ways. On Equifax I disputed a 30 day late, but not the tradeline itself. No response and they deleted the late and bumped it R1 status. On TU, of course, I disputed a 30 day late. Also no response and they deleted the whold tradeline, which after arguing with several people at TU, I finally got it reinserted less the lates.
Re: I'll take another shot at it I've had it go both ways. On Equifax I disputed a 30 day late, but not the tradeline itself. No response and they deleted the late and bumped it R1 status. On TU, of course, I disputed a 30 day late. Also no response and they deleted the whold tradeline, which after arguing with several people at TU, I finally got it reinserted less the lates. KHM, don't forget to demand to see the "certification" of this acct from the cra.
Re: I'll take another shot at it Thanx LKH. Thanx LKH. lol Yeah I think this could be used in your favor either way. If an entire TL can be turned positive with a minor adjustment I'd go that route. If it can't then one might assert that it's NOT 100% complete and accurate. Go figure.
