This is a detailed and hard to follow thread when it's nearing midnight, so I'll study in-depth more tomorrow. The last I pulled a TU report, from the TU site itself, just this week, click click click, payment options -- they are now advertising that you can see your report free OR pay and see the report that is provided to lenders. I can't remember what the charge is at the moment. Seems a tad blatant to me. The language is very clear, ALL information. Your postings have helped me very much as has the dialogue, thank you for sharing, Greg. I've down-loaded the documents as well ;-) should you ever need witness or retrieval. Sassy
Yes. The law states, "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." The dispute is in regard to "completeness."
Yeah, I agree with you. I will send my final version in the mail tomorrow, but am going to fax it to both call centers today. I didn't put in the bit about BALANCE higher than MOST OWED because I'm trying to keep to one issue. There are other things clearly wrong with their disclosure, like not showing the DOLA, and not including the required summary of rights. One letter, one issue, for clarity.
If you are trying to get an item removed from your file, a completeness dispute is fine, and should have good results. Since I know that isn't your goal, I wonder why you aren't just pushing this issue as a blatant disregard for 15 U.S.C. § 1681g (FCRA § 609. Disclosures to consumers). Here is what I am strongly considering: I will simply ask, in the plainest and clearest language possible, for a consumer disclosure. I will also include the entirely of FCRA § 609. When they give me the standard consumer report, instead of a proper disclosure, I will to file a small claims suit. Rinse and repeat. Eventually they will get tired of me and give me a data dump of my file. (Or I'll go broke trying.) I will NOT settle for money. I will NOT agree to keep quiet about it. Anyway, just my latest thoughts...
Faxes sent! I went ahead and sent to both call centers and also the main headquarters fax number as listed by the BBB. Tomorrow morning I will be sending the letter, and will post the tracking number later in the day. (I have it now, but where's the suspense in that? ) Greg, did you send restricted delivery? I'm wondering if it would guarantee that the letter gets tossed in the trash, or if it might actually get read by Mr. Gambill. I'm afraid that NOT sending it restricted will just get it in the trash can anyway. I actually DO want the guy to read it, but somehow I doubt he even knows much about what information they actually store. Bleh, any thoughts?
Yikes, 24 posts, and half are probably mine! Bumb to get input. Should I send this restricted delivery? Opinions please...
Ha! I sent a certified letter to Mr. Gambill last Sept. In return, I got a letter from Don Richman stating that contacting Mr. Gambill is not the way disputes are to be handled. He then said, "I am aware that you have our consumer relations' address and toll free number, and we ask that you use it, rather than contacting Mr. Gambill." Then came the line that started the "This board is being watched" thread. "I am also aware of your postings on the Creditnert Member chat room; we request that you refrain from any further libelous comments about Trans Union, or the matter will be referred to our counsel for appropriate action." No libel on my part.
They can prove that YOU ARE THE LKH HERE??? You could be the nextdoor neighbor's cousin that visits LKH occasionally to talk about computers and stuff...and uses the computer occasionally...
I wasn't making a dispute, I was pointing out fact, and asking if something was going to be done about it. Since the president of a company is in a good position to get things moving, what better person to contact? ) As for this board, it's hard to sue for libel when there isn't any...
Actually, I wasn't making a dispute either. What I was doing was trying to get 4 positivie accts they deleted, reinserted to my report.
If you are trying to get an item removed from your file, a completeness dispute is fine, and should have good results. Since I know that isn't your goal, I wonder why you aren't just pushing this issue as a blatant disregard for 15 U.S.C. § 1681g (FCRA § 609. Disclosures to consumers). Because "completeness" falls under the "Procedure in case of disputed accuracy." I'm not concerned with the technicalities. If TransUnion's (previously "Trans Union" in lawsuits until recently) lawyers want to play their game (instead of doing what they shoud do: Apologize), they are free to do so. Don't play their game. I'm wondering if it would guarantee that the letter gets tossed in the trash, or if it might actually get read by Mr. Gambill. I'm afraid that NOT sending it restricted will just get it in the trash can anyway. http://pe.usps.gov/text/dmm/s916.htm I actually DO want the guy to read it, but somehow I doubt he even knows much about what information they actually store. That would be ironic in this age of corporate irresponsibility. Maybe we could feed the Times, the Post and Ted Koppel some questions for him. In the FTC's credit scoring forum a few years ago, unbelievably, the CRAs were not on any of the panels. They sent some guy, instead, to represent all three. That was a good move in the short term, but a bad move, historically. They think they're handling the public outcry about scoring, but they're kidding themselves. Indeed, there are even bigger issues, like this one. That industry has some serious problems and one is a serious ostrich mentality-- when their heads aren't elswhere, they're in the sand. Bumb to get input. Should I send this restricted delivery? Opinions please... Whatever. Track down the person who signed for it, and send them a letter demanding to know what they did with it. Send a letter to their dispute address. Let them play the games. It's good reading, and only strengthens your case.
If you are trying to get an item removed from your file, a completeness dispute is fine, and should have good results. Since I know that isn't your goal, I wonder why you aren't just pushing this issue as a blatant disregard for 15 U.S.C. § 1681g (FCRA § 609. Disclosures to consumers). Because "completeness" falls under the "Procedure in case of disputed accuracy." I'm not concerned with the technicalities. If TransUnion's (previously "Trans Union" in lawsuits until recently) lawyers want to play their game (instead of doing what they shoud do: Apologize), they are free to do so. Don't play their game. I don't think I fully understand your reasoning. If they follow the required procedure (fat chance), then the only two remedies are to correct the error (show you all of the data for that item) or delete. It's not hard to figure out which they will do, if indeed they do anything. Followed to it's conclusion, you could presumably end up with a completely empty file, or something approaching this. Or even worse, you would merely not be shown anything when requesting your file, but the data would still be there working against you. (Assuming there actually is hidden data.) I am quite sure I am just missing your point. Perhaps you can clarify? I guess my main concern right now, or at least the thing I'd like to focus on, is that there is data stored about me that I have a legal right to obtain, but am being denied that right with seeming impunity. Showing the obvious discrepencies between consumer reports and lender reports certainly proves the consumer version is not a proper disclosure, but how does disputing it as incomplete get me the full disclosure? It could be argued, though a CRA would be fool to, that the file itself is indeed complete, but the consumer report was missing some information. Indeed, how can we even perfect a dispute if we can not be certain the 'disclosure' is complete. Would the CRA's really be so bold as to rely on such a silly technicality? Is there really a technicality there anyway? Maybe I am stuck playing their game and don't even realize it. I think that there is enough available evidence to easily prove violations of the consumer disclosure requirement. The only question in my mind is what good it does anyone. It's late (or early). Perhaps it will all become clear after I have thought more about it. I hope my ramblings here contain at least a small amount of coherency )
Well, they got the letter on the 26th and I have the green card to show it ) I don't know why the web tracker didn't update yet. The post office is blazingly fast getting the mail there though, so I'm not complaining...
Bumping for the other thread: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=231102#post231102 Sassy
Greg, Admittedly I fall under the most "unsophisticated consumer" provisions so forgive my ignorance here. I've been following this thread, read both your sites, read all the related links, and I just am not seeing how this response from TransUnion addresses your question nor the requirement that ALL information stored be disclosed to the consumer, regardless of how it is stored. This is from your site: From the page titled "TransUnion Credit Report Fields": PAYPAT: The subjectâ??s payment pattern, which is his/her actual rating, or Manner of Payment, over a period of time. Depending on which option a customer chooses, either 24 months or 12 months of information will be shown. The default setting is 24 months. The first position on the left of the first row corresponds to the account status of the previously reported month. This will not correspond to the MOP field, which represents the most recently reported account status, usually the current month. Each subsequent field to the right corresponds to one month further back in time. In the first example, the first half of the PAYPAT field is 445543211111. The first position indicates the information reported one month ago (MOP=4): One month agoâ??MOP = 4 Two months agoâ??MOP = 4 Three months agoâ??MOP = 5 Four months agoâ??MOP = 5 Etc With the decoding in the TU letter: One month ago -- 4 = paying more than 90 days late Two months ago -- 4 = the same Three months ago -- 5 = paying more than 120 days late Four months ago -- 5 = the same Five months ago -- 4 = paying more than 90 days late Six months ago -- 3 = paying more than 60 days late Seven months ago -- 2 = paying more than 30 days late Eight months ago --1 = paying as agreed Seven through 12 months ago -- 1 = paying as agreed This would be the same if history requested was for 24 months instead of 12? It was nice that they decoded for you ;-) but wasn't the point that you aren't getting that sequence of numerical information on your report as a consumer, neither am I nor any other consumer, nor any specific or substantiating dates attached to the negative history and notations? He sent you a modified report, did it include the dates? If you request another report, will it include the dates? Will mine include the dates? Should we all expect a copy of our reports with an additional disclosure letter? Is TU going to provide the same to each and every one of us from this day forward? How can he state in the correspondence that they don't store dates but now admit they do and still not provide them? I must be getting more unsophisticated by the nano-second because I'm thinking an FTC letter writing campaign is in order -- I don't know how they could now escape being considered blatant and willful in their actions. Am I missing something? Sassy
... This would be the same if history requested was for 24 months instead of 12? Right. It was nice that they decoded for you ;-) but wasn't the point that you aren't getting that sequence of numerical information on your report as a consumer, neither am I nor any other consumer, nor any specific or substantiating dates attached to the negative history and notations? That was absolutely the point. He sent you a modified report, did it include the dates? No. If you request another report, will it include the dates? It should, but this letter and the attached report make it clear that it won't. Will mine include the dates? No. Should we all expect a copy of our reports with an additional disclosure letter? If you write a similar letter, perhaps. Is TU going to provide the same to each and every one of us from this day forward? I don't know. I hope not. How can he state in the correspondence that they don't store dates but now admit they do and still not provide them? They made no such admission. I asked for the meaning of the sequence of numbers (two rows, one of 12, the second of of 6), but they didn't state that the numbers corresponded to particular dates. I'm not sure if that was ignorance, incompetence, or subterfuge. I must be getting more unsophisticated by the nano-second because I'm thinking an FTC letter writing campaign is in order -- I don't know how they could now escape being considered blatant and willful in their actions. On the contrary, you have it right. Indeed, their bizarre response to my request included informing me that the account is now missing (I assume because they removed it-- as jambe predicted). As campaign is one option. Am I missing something? No. This is a hole in the system you can drive a truck through.
Great way to put it! ) I'm glad to see you got a reply. Too bad they screwed it up... What's your next step?
Well, I got a reply, but not from the main office yet. As I mentioned above, I faxed a copy of my letter to each of the call centers, and the CA center sent a this response: Though I can't be certain, I think they are saying that they only store the information shown in the consumer report, but we all know that to be untrue. Wait, they haven't actually said that, but have instead merely stated the obvious. They are, indeed, playing word games. "As they are already reflected on your credit file." While I have no doubt as to the truth of that statement, I have never atually seen said file in its entirety. Hmmm. I guess it's time to start requesting my disclosures. I think I'll wait for a reply from the main office though, just so's I have more ammo )
