I have a dumb question, so don't laugh! I just had a charge off on my credit report deleted by the CRA. What are the chances of it being re-added? For example if the OC decides to report next month will it automatically be re-added to my CR? Is that considered re-insertion and if it is, is that illegal?
So they have to send me notice that they are re-inserting the tradeline 5 days before they do it? Who has to send the notice? CRA or OC? To have it removed again do I have to go through the whole dispute process again? Thank you.
Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question It's one thing if the OC reports the TL again - it will be like any other TL reported by the OCs. No action from CRA is required. It's another thing if CRA reinserts the TL. They can do it only if "[color=0066FF]the person who furnishes the information certifies that the information is complete and accurate[/color]" and in this case the CRA must "[color=0066FF]notify the consumer of the reinsertion in writing not later than 5 business days after the reinsertion[/color]". Ref: FCRA 611(a)(5)(B)
Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question I think that is actually incorrect. If the original poster disputed and the CRA deleted after attempting to investigate it, they do have to notify him if they put it back on his report. This why they suppress info. If the OC or CA changes account numbers or amounts then I think it would be hard to hold the CRA accountable.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question That's the tricky part ... if the CRA does it on their own, yes, they have to notify, but if the OC reports it in their regular monthly report - CRA is not obligated to do anything, even if it's about the same account. Because the OC has reported it again and the CRA didn't "reinsert" it, they just reported this month what the OC have sent them this month.
Sorry, pnwman is absolutely right. There is nothing tricky about it. The OC HAS to certify to the accuracy of the TL, and regular monthly reporting does not meet that criteria. 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.
With all due respect, jlynn, there is a tricky part - the difference between reporting and reinserting. - When the OC "[color=0066FF]regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information[/color]" to the CRA, then the CRA will report the information. - When the CRA decides by itself to report previously deleted information, then the CRA will reinsert the information. In addition, furnishing the information "[color=0066FF]regularly and in the ordinary course of business[/color]" will execute the OC's obligation under 611(a)(5)(B) to certify "[color=0066FF]that the information is complete and accurate[/color]". In addition, let say you had a CO. Let say you disputed it with the CRA, you get lucky and the CRA deleted it. Let say the OC finds out about it. Section 623(a)(1)(A) prohibits the OC from furnishing inaccurate information. Knowing that the CO is, in fact, the accurate information, the OC cannot report the account without the CO note. In addition, in Philbin vs TransUnion is clearly stated that "[color=0066FF]allowing inaccurate information back onto a credit report after deleting it because it is inaccurate is negligent[/color]". They were not talking about any, but about an inaccurate information. IMHO, the keyword is "accurate". You would be absolutely right if there wasn't, in fact, a CO on his account, but that's not the case here. For as long as the OC is the owner of the account and there is a CO on the account, the OC has the right to furnish the information to the CRA and the CRA has the right to report it. P.S. I hope I won't have to buy *you* flowers ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question That is tricky. If the OC decides to furnish the TL again, doesn't the CRA have a duty to initially investigate? And if the CRA did actually investigate, wouldn't that investigation reveal the same TL that was previously deleted? I would think that the CRA would try the "our computer didn't catch it" cop-out. Nevertheless, they do have a duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy. I think it would be hard for the CRA to prove that after at least two investigations of the same TL that they couldn't assure MPA.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question So basically the tradeline could end up back on my credit report and there would be almost nothing I could do about it other than do the whole dispute process over again. I don't see how they can put it back on if it was found to be inaccurate and deleted. I am confused.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question Hang on, this is just my opinion. I'm sure jlynn will comment it, I hope some other of the Gurus will comment it too. Again, it's my interpretation of the law in case you do have a charge-off. If you don't, then the CRA has no reason to reinsert it. P.S. I've called the cavalry, hope they will come soon ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question The "re-insertion" procedure is listed in § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] In the first section ((A)), we see the following language: "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 " This means that before ANY of the requirements listed in 611 "kick in" the consumer must FIRST dispute the TL's accuracy. Once an item is "deleted" BECAUSE THE CONSUMER DISPUTED IT'S ACCURACY, it now meets the definition of "deleted" information. It's the deletion of the TL because of the consumers dispute that causes 611 to kick in, which includes the "certification" requirement. (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), (A), as noted above is pursuant to a dispute by the consumer. It's the CRA's job to, in these instances, to "SUPPRESS" the TL to prevent it from reappearing. Here's what it says on the EQ website: Check your credit file periodically to see that information that has been removed has not been re-inserted. (Deleted information may not be re-inserted into your file unless the agency takes steps to have the source of the information certify that it is complete and accurate.) ONLY if the DF "certifies" the accuracy of the info., may the CRA re-report. So do I get flowers??? .
Not after one more question ... If the DF reports again the account as charge-off in their ordinary course of business, would you consider this a "certification" of the accuracy?
Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question Good question Vlad. Doc and I used to argue about that. As a result I looked up the word "certify", "certified", and "certification", in the FCRA and found about 40 references or so, I forget how many. lol A "certification" requires a signature. IMHO a cert. is a document attesting to the TL's accuracy and signed by a person of position. .
Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question They never get those BTW. We used to talk about DEMANDING a copy of this mysterious cert whenever a TL got re-inserted. I don't believe we've seen one yet. In a case where someone did demand it and ended up in court, the CRA said to the Judge, "we have it your honor but couldn't locate the document". lol .
I know ... my whole "defense" in this "case" comes to the answer to this question ... Hmm ... and because FCRA does not obligate them to provide us with the certification, they can just ignore us and show it to the court only ... is that what you're saying? Well, that's a whole new discussion ... BTW, I miss Sassy ...
Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question BTW, if I have proof that I have requested that certification from the CRA several times and they have failed to provide it, and, they show it in the court room, couldn't some estoppel (by silence, or equitable) apply? Just thinking aloud ...
Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question Sorry guys. The new job only allows me a short period of time here You two are making it way to complicated. Look at it this way. If, under your theory, re-reporting in the course of business is considered certification, or is not considered reinsertion, why would any Furnisher respond to a dispute? Lets see jlynn is disputing xyz. We won't bother to investigate. Let the CRA delete and next time we re-report, it will be right back on there, and we have no work. See?
