Well I sent my CHOD letters in 2 weeks ago and I got a letter from Transunion stating that my request for reinvestigation was frivolous and they would not be investigating it. Today I drafted this letter and faxed it to their CA and their PA offices. I will also send it out in the AM CRRR. I really don't know if I am correct in the assumption that they only have 30 days... from the date of receipt of my request. I was kind of talking out my butt, but I hope I'm correct in my interpretation of the FCRA. Or do they have 30 days from receipt of this letter? Anyways here's what I sent them. ME WHERE I LIVE Houston TX 77777 Transunion 1561 E. Orangethorpe Ave. Fullerton, CA 92831-5207 Date: 12/03/2002 Re: Your claim of my re-investigation request being frivolous To Whom it May Concern: I received a letter from your firm stating that my letter requesting verification of erroneous items on my report as being classified as â??frivolousâ?. I assure you that in no way do I consider a matter of such importance to me as frivolous. In fact if you do not honor my original request dated 11/16/2002 I will be filing a lawsuit against you, Transunion, in District 8 of Harris County, Houston Texas. You are simply wasting my time and yours. You were bound by law to act upon my simple, lawful request submitted on 11/16/2002 yet you chose to ignore it. At the time of this letter you have only 13 days left to complete your investigation. Any additional delay after the 30 days (which expires 12/16/2002) outlined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act will be construed as willful non-compliance and you will be dealt with accordingly. There is no time extension. The Fair Credit Reporting Act states 30 days from receipt of the demand for investigation. There is no clause granting time extensions to credit reporting agencies that refuse to follow the law. Make no mistake, if you deny me my rights under the law; I will take the legal recourse provided to me under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. I have tried to resolve this amicably. Respectfully, ME SSN DOB cc: My Lawyer, esq Federal Trade Commission California Attorney General Pennsylvania Attorney General Texas Attorney General
I think they are allowed an extra 15 days if any new info is provided to them, they COULD consider this new info. Unless you have a papertrail a mile long *I* would take a different approach. Play dumb, something like "I don't understand why my claim is labeled frivolous. I was told by a Credit Card company that if I believed there was an error on my report that I was to send the CRA a dispute, so that's what I did." Catch my drift The only time I played hardball WITHOUT the evidence it got me NOWHERE! When I played dumb and innocent I got what I wanted. CRA's don't understand intelligence.
I can't add anything helpful, but I love your "subject" line. Hope THAT doesn't offend any TransVestites, though.. Nestea -- Did you think you would see a sig. here??
just because they previously verified inacurrate information doesn't mean that they can refuse to reinvestigate. not much help but good luck...
No can do. I have this sneaky suspicion they keep records of correspondance. I've been coached through most of this by members of the board. Therefore they know I (they assume it's me) know what's going on. Well we'll see what the general concensus is. If we get a valid enough argument that on day X their time is up... and they're not done I will have the lawsuit drafted and ready to file the day after. Isn't that the truth?
Unfortunately, unless different or more info was provided by Mr Texas on this dispute, they can deem the dispute frivolous, and would probably get away with it in court. FCRA rule 611 3) Determination that dispute is frivolous or irrelevant. (A) In general. Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a consumer reporting agency may terminate a reinvestigation of information disputed by a consumer under that paragraph if the agency reasonably determines that the dispute by the consumer is frivolous or irrelevant, including by reason of a failure by a consumer to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information.
Like what kind of evidence? I've got a file on Transunion and Transunion related documents 3 inches thick.
There is a "GUY" that comes in our store every-so-often that wears dresses...HE/SHE is NOT that good lookin' (PRETTY UGLY AS GUYS GO ALSO)...
What if in the initial dispute I stated that after contacting the creditor I was told that they had no records, whatsoever, of the account therefore they could not help me and I needed to dispute it with Transvestite? (niiiice run on sentence, eh?)
I have a question. Why was it verified back in the spring? You could request they supply the procedure they used to verify the info. Related question: Is it actually an error or are they verifying something legit? I think it's a shame you sent the letter. It fails to demonstrate a sound understanding of the FCRA in the area of disputes. Who knows, though...maybe it will work.
