Re: Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question I am a little confused by this. Are you saying they CAN just report it again and get it back on my CR or that doing it the way you described above wouldn't be "certification"?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question I'm saying that just reporting it again in the course of doing business is not certification. If it were, then no furnishers would research disputes...they would only need to report each month as they usually do, and the information would be placed back on our reports.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question Hey jlynn! You might be right from a practical point of view. I guess me and Butch were talking about it if it goes to court. But even practical - if there is a derog on the account, CRA deletes it (by accident, by mistake, CHOD), then CRA will be reporting inaccurate information, because the derog really exists. And the OC has full rights to request this derog to appear on the CR ... both practical and by the law. As I said before - if there wasn't a derog - you're absolutely right. The point I'm trying to make is, if you do have a charge-off, you can't prevent its appearance on your CR. Unless you are very lucky ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question I don't think your still getting my point... mistake/accident - not 611, so no recert CHOD - 611 dispute recert necessary You CAN prevent a CO reappearance if the Furnisher does not certify that the individual TL is 100% accurate and verifiable. Rereporting with the masses is not acceptable. The OC does have full rights to request its presence--but it has to be verifiable. Secondly - the CRA has to notify you in writing within 5 days of its reappearance - or they have violated the law. Been there done this, and DH's definitely lates on his GMAC account are not there because GMAC did rereport it with the masses, did not certify it, and CSC did not notify us of the reinsertion. It is gone for good. 5 baddies from TU are gone for good thanks to CHOD. They were deleted, then reinserted without proper individualized certification, and now have been deleted and suppressed so they CAN'T show up again.
Cneter's Holiday Onslaught of Disputes. Short version - around the holidays, the CRA's 30 days are limited by closings, and people taking xtra time off. So we send bunches of disputes hoping they won't get done in 30 days.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question Oh, I get the point ... and I'm sure glad the point looks like this ... As I said before, I wasn't sure what's considered a "verification". The dictionary gives several meanings, one of them is just "confirmation". If you say that "verification" is interpreted as a separate paper with the DF's statement the account is yours and their signature - that's good for all of us and you get the flowers ... May be you can clear up few more things ... CRA is not obligated to give us a copy of that certification. We say they haven't verified it. They just say they have. We take them to the court. How can we be sure that they won't just show it to the court and rest their case? Butch said he has seen things like this happen. In addition, 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?
Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question I have to fly with jlynn on this one; nothing tricky either!!!!!!! Here are the steps as well as the part that is missing from this thread. § 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. Assuming no frivilous or irrelevant determination that triggers a termination of the required reinvestigation and a different notice from the CRA's to the consumer within 5-days. 2) Prompt notice of dispute to furnisher of information. (A) In general. Before the expiration of the 5-business-day period beginning on the date on which a consumer reporting agency receives notice of a dispute from any consumer in accordance with paragraph (1), the agency shall provide notification of the dispute to any person who provided any item of information in dispute, at the address and in the manner established with the person. The notice shall include all relevant information regarding the dispute that the agency has received from the consumer. NOT providing the notice of dispute and information, isn't an option. (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 Assuming deletion for the purposes of this thread 6) Notice of results of reinvestigation. (A) In general. A consumer reporting agency shall provide written notice to a consumer of the results of a reinvestigation under this subsection not later than 5 business days after the completion of the reinvestigation, by mail or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by other means available to the agency. Here is the part you are missing, it always comes back to reasonable procedures, the CRA's have a bigger role once something is disputed. And, this is what the snippet from the Philibin case (previosly quoted) refers to and why the court determined it is always negligent. 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)). The only exception to the above, is if the furnisher follows the certification requirements and the CRA provides the required notice to the consumer. You can't skip the procedures, it is soooooooo huge, and fundamental to the FCRA and its enactment. CRA's are not held to absolute accuracy. They only have to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. To make a finding of negligent noncompliance (back to the Philibin snippet), you have to show they failed to follow reasonable procedures. Here is the whole previously quoted snippet: From Philbin: The parties agree that a case of negligent noncompliance with 1681e(b) consists of four elements: (1) inaccurate information was included in a consumer's credit report; (2) the inaccuracy was due to defendant's failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy; (3) the consumer suffered injury; and (4) the consumer's injury was caused by the inclusion of the inaccurate entry. See Morris v. Credit Bureau of Cincinnati, Inc., 563 F. Supp. 962, 967 (S.D. Ohio 1983); Bryant v. TRW, Inc., 487 F. Supp. 1234, 1238 (E.D. Mich. 1980), aff'd, 689 F.2d 72 (6th Cir. 1982). Defendants do not dispute they both produced at least one report that contained inaccurate information about Philbin. Nor do they contest that Philbin's emotional distress damages are cognizable. *fn3 See Guimond, 45 F.3d at 1333; Stevenson v. TRW Inc., 987 F.2d 288, 296 (5th Cir. 1993); Millstone v. O'Hanlon Reports, Inc., 528 F.2d 829, 834-35 (8th Cir. 1976). Moreover, TUC apparently concedes that Philbin has satisfied his burden on summary judgment of producing facts from which a reasonable jury could infer that it did not follow reasonable procedures. As other courts have held, "[a]llowing inaccurate information back onto a credit report after deleting it because it is inaccurate is negligent." Stevenson, 987 F.2d at 293; see also Morris, 563 F. Supp. at 968. 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. If the above doesn't happen (certification by the furnisher) and the notice to the consumer (from the CRA) isn't provided, there is NO reinsertion option. You're giving to much credit and power to the furnisher, vghost, they don't make the rules, they FOLLOW the rules. The CRA's are always ultimately responsible. The furnisher may try to report again or via monthly automated updates -- it is the responsibility of the CRA's to have procedures in place to suppress that information (cloaking) once deleted (based on a dispute initiated by a consumer via the CRA's) and without the required certification, if they do so. BTW, deletions that occur in this manner and that are suppressed as required, cannot appear again, not even with the mortgage or employment exceptions. Truly the benefit of deletions occurring via the dispute process versus settlement for deletion or anything similar. C'mon jlynn (putting flowers in hair) we're flying!!!!!!!!! flap flap flap Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question It's good to see ya, Sassy ... While I agree with everything you said (sounds weird, I know), as I mentioned few minutes ago, I wasn't sure about the interpretation of the word "verification". If you all say it's a written document with a signature, I'm off to the flower shop ... How about the questions I asked right before your post?
Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question vghost, I'm smellinggggggggg the flowers ;-) What does verification have to do with anything in this thread? I'm not following or not understanding the questions in your immediately previous post as they relate to reinsertion. Sassy
Let me try to explain ... If the CRA has the certification from the DF, CRA can reinsert the TL. If the CRA doesn't have it - then they are in a violation. Since "certification" is interpreted as a signed document, the other questions arised - what would happen if the CRA doesn't want to give us the proof they have this certification (by giving us a copy of it), and, if their refusal to show us the certification after our multiple requests could call for some kind of estoppel if we go to court. Too bad I can't send you anything from CN. But, if you dare to email me ...
Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question The CRA is REQUIRED to have the certification to reinsert -- that triggers a notice to the consumer within 5 days. If the consumer gets a reinsertion letter (cough, cough), there is required to be certification. Deep doo doo for them should they be lying, whether they send a copy or not. Though I think it's a good idea to ask, there have been many a brain boggling thread on that. It's just like the CRA's being required to notify the furnisher of the dispute with the relevant information provided to the consumer within 5-days. If the consumer didn't get the required notice for frivilous or irrelevant, there's a violation, whether the CRA will provide you evidence they did send the notice as REQUIRED or not. Both go back to snippet from the Sheffer case, posted by Butch in another thread. That a violation occurred is enough to survive a summary judgment and proceed to discovery. I don't think it has been determined that certification requires a signature, Butch may think so and I don't disagree. To report or make changes via UDF requires a signature -- that doesn't necessarily make it certified. I've never seen a certification of accuracy and completeness on a UDF form. Flying with jlynn, that it has to be more than furnishing information monthly or in the regular course of business, because that process doesn't require a certification and until something is disputed or the CRA's have reason to know that the information may be inaccurate or incomplete, they've no liability for what they report, nor does the furnisher. All responsibility is triggered by a dispute, either with the CRA directly and/or the furnisher directly. Nothing says we have to dispute with the furnisher, it only lays a papertrail, exhausts all available means of consumer resolution, and eliminates the pointing of fingers -- the CRA's are always ultimately responsible. That's why your argument that the OC can insist something be reported and legally won't work (from above, that's paraphrased). There is nothing that requires reporting at all, so there is no law that would allow them to do so. And ultimately, if the information doesn't meet the reporting requirements, no matter the information or what the furnisher does or doesn't do, it can't be reported. The CRA's are required to have procedures in place to see that it doesn't -- that is what this speaks to, their procedures. If something is reinserted with no notice to the consumer as required = violation = consumer can presume based on what is required, that there was no required certification, and whatever (if any) procedures the CRA's have in place to prevent it, weren't followed or weren't reasonable to begin with. Actually, I think that is just what happens, the procedure for keeping something that has been deleted via a dispute from appearing again, appears to be a manual suppression and cloaking. The furnisher reports via whatever their monthly mechanism is, the TL that was deleted appears again, without the required notice (violation), because the cloaking procedure isn't automated -- they CRA's only hope you never notice. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question So if the TL gets reported again and the CRA doesn't catch it and supress it, they are in violation unless they mailed me the reinsertion notice? But I guess if they didn't catch it they wouldn't have mailed a reinsertion notice. So to sum this all up, it could show up again but the CRA would have to mail me notice of reinsertion. It would also have to be certified to be true by the OC. I am a little confused on the certification part. Does the CRA have to provide me with proof that the OC certified it? You would think they would just to cover thier a**???
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question Right, but the point is, they may have it, or they may not. Just think about it ... They reinsert and they send you the notice. At this point you, the consumer, have no idea if they really have the certification. You've got few options: 1. Leave it as it is - you lose. 2. Dispute it again, they respond "verified" - you lose. 3. Request a copy of the certification from the CRA, they don't respond - you lose. 4. Request a copy of the certification from the DF, they don't respond - you lose. 5. Take them to the court, boom, they show the certification - you lose. 6. ??? So, back to my original questions: 1. What would happen if the CRA doesn't want to prove us they have this certification (by giving us a copy of it)? 2. Could their refusal to show us the certification after our multiple requests call for some kind of estoppel if we go to court? So, we still don't know what actually a "certification" is ... Hmm ... there is nothing that forbids reporting either, but Section 623(a)(1)(A) prohibits them from reporting inaccurate information and we are talking about a case, where the charge-off is the accurate information which meets the reporting requirements (to be accurate). Still smelling the flowers?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question Well, you might be right ... you are talking in general, based on your experience and thinking, I am talking about a specific case, based on the law ... Sorry to have bothered you.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question vghost, My apologies, you aren't bothering me. The system is supposed to be fair (see the purpose and congressional findings). You want to say that they aren't reporting a charge-off that is accurate. If it was accurate, why did you dispute it all, and why are we having this conversation? Not reporting the charge-off, that you say should be reporting because it would be accurate, is because as a furnisher they agree to play by the rules. Playing by the rules means responding to disputes within the legal time-frames. They failed to do so or the information was inaccurate and it was deleted, as required. If the furnisher doesn't like that, they have to certify the information and resubmit it. Then the consumer is required to get a notice within 5 days of that happening. For a CRA to issue a reinsertion notice without their being certification as required, would be a big huge violation. Of course, they wouldn't provide you proof of having done that, BUT, just like with the notice of dispute required to be provided to the furnisher within 5 days, THAT is what discovery is for and knowing there was a violation is enough to get you there. That is what is silly, not you. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question No need to apologize, Sassy, but thank you anyway ... It has been a long thread, so let me summarize the case ... - I do have a charge-off. - It is listed in my report. - I dispute it with the CRA, they delete it (I don't know if they have failed to verify it, or I just got lucky). - The DF reports the charge-off again in their regular course of business. - The CRA reinserts it and sends me the notice. If the CRA doesn't have the certification, yes, they are in a violation. But I don't know if they have it or not. As you said - that is what discovery is for, so the only way to find out if they have it is to take them to the court. But, we have to do that without actually knowing if they are in a violation. They may have the certification. Once they show it to the court, we have wasted our time and (most likely) our money. Besides, the charge-off stays in our report forever (because they have verified it). This is what I've been trying to figure out. How to be sure they don't have the certification, so we can take them to the court without the risk of losing the case? According to FRCP: [color=0066FF]Rule 34. Production of Documents ... (a) Any party may serve on any other party a request (1) to produce and permit the party making the request ... to inspect and copy, any designated documents ... which are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served;[/color] So I started thinking about the Estoppel In Pais (AKA equitable estoppel) ... [color=0066FF]A type of estoppel that bars a person from adopting a position in court that contradicts his or her past statements or actions when that contradictory stance would be unfair to another person who relied on the original position. [/color] The estoppel application would be - I have requested several times the certification from the CRA, they didn't give it to me, therefore the equitable estoppel applies, therefore the certification cannot be used as an evidence anymore, therefore the CRA is in a violation. So, what do you think?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tl Deletion Question certified ['sɜ¢°t©¥ˌfa©¥d] adjective 1 - holding or guaranteed by a certificate certificate noun [sə'týfýkýt] 1 - an official document attesting the truth of the facts stated. . You might be right about Estoppel Vlad. Wouldn't know until you try it. .
