TU Help PLEASE!!!!

How do the credit reporting agencies ensure that they are delivering entire consumer reports over the web to the consumers the reports are about-- and not to imposters?

 

Get your answers from the authority

Re: "TU Help PLEASE!!!!"

Ask the judge.

 

Gillian, not to belabor this thread, but... I was re-reading the FCRA and regarding the CRA's right to request validation of the requestor, it doesn't allude to anything that allows them more time if they are asking for something. However, it does say that if the CRA receives something from the consumer relating to the investigation, they have an additional two weeks.

In other words, (experts correct me if I'm wrong) they can request authentication from you, but are only granted the additional two weeks if you send it to them. Therefore it's in their own best interest to send you via snail mail a request, instead of calling you or sending an email.

Wondering if it holds water...

 

No problem Gillian. I'm interested in how it turns out. I guess it depends on how much time you are willing to wait. When I began my credit repair efforts I was very impatient and would have responded by sending a sig right away. Now, I look for any way I can catch them at thier own game. And since they tend to operate with the effeciency and error rate of a Commodore64 (very old quasi-computer for those not as old as I) it's inevitable that most deletions can be obtained just by thier lack of adherence to the laws (or interpretation of them)

So I guess what I'm saying is at this point in my life I would wait until the 30 days are up and send them another dispute citing they didn't respond in the allowed time. If they follow up with the sig delay issue, just respond you never got the letter... (they didn't send it via CRRR did they?) and ask them where it says in the FCRA that you are required to provide a signature. And if they do update your dispute, you know for sure they really don't need your signature, it was just a delay tactic.

Good luck, hope it goes well. Let me know what happens...

 

cma, should I give up on your answering that?

 

By providing you with the report they have established your identity. If not then they would be open to suits for allowing others to view the online report.

I don't believe they can and would be found in violation if challanged in court. The ID requirements for releasing the report are as strong or stronger than the requirements for accepting disputes.



JohnM

 

Mr. Fisher, I already answered your question on Friday. Go back and re-read what I posted. If you feel that my answer is not to your satisfaction, then let me know and I'll do better to explain. But primarily, their online verification is the same as what I have provided via snail mail or telephone request: name, address, ssn, phone number, birth date. I have never provided an actual signature.

 

what would providing a signature hurt? just out of curiosity. They already have every bit of info about you there is, except your blood type (i think) ;p

 

Don't you have to give them a credit card number?

 

I found a definition of "electronic signature" in the U.S. Code(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/7006.html).

What is your definition from?

 

I quoted the 106th US Congress (1st session) as presented in the Electronic Signatures In Global and National Commerce Act (H. R. 1714-AN ACT-
To facilitate the use of electronic records and signatures in interstate or foreign commerce)

I figured the US Federal Government had jurisdiction over any other independant definition

 

I suppose you do if you are ordering the report. But I have requested my annual 'free' report and subsequent updated reports (also free) via phone and snail mail, and then challenged via online and phone and was never asked for a credit card number.

I think the CRAs inconsistent ability to manage individual reports is only superceded by their apathetic utilization of the FCRA to buy time in this instance.

 

What independant [sic] definition? What's the law: Your definition, or mine?

If you don't accept Cornell University's publication (I do), then here's a link to the law on the U.S. House (as in "H.R" (House Resolution)) web site:

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t13t16+2802+9++('electro

Cut to the chase.

 

They are one in the same definition...

What chase? You've taken so many detours off the main topic of this thread, I've lost count. Yes, the original topic was signatures, but only if they are required as a form of consumer verification or just a stalling tactic used by the CRA. Irregardless, your acceptance of either of the definitions tells me you concur with my statements above. I'm done with this topic.

 

You said, "They are one in the same definition."

That is not true; the definitions are different. And, one is the law, and one (yours) is not.

I'm happy to talk about the original premise: Identification. The poster is trying to manipulate someone else's credit file without giving the CRA proof of authorization to do that by the consumer. Do you endorse that?

Within my first few words, I said, "I wouldn't want my credit file dinked with if I didn't communicate my authorization-- and that's exactly what's happening here. You're not the consumer. Does he know about this?"

She got caught. For everybody's sake, that's a good thing. This message board would be a howling madhouse if somebody changed somebody else's credit file without proper authorization.

 

I'm not allowed to contribute to this thread, so would somebody please get an update? The original dispute was over two months ago.