TU's Failure to Notate

I brought this up with Mr. Richman. His response was that I was confused between the *duties* of those that give them the info versus TU's duties. I also asked about the fact that TU list's entire account numbers on their reports. His response was that TU will list the info *anyway they want to*.

good luck

 

It is my understanding that the company who is reporting the info is the one to mark the account in dispute, not the CRA.

 

Charles,

I thought the reason we send disputes to the CA first, get green card and then dispute with the CRA is that it is the CA's duty to report that you had previously disputed with them.

To follow your logic we could NEVER sue a CA over "failure to report dispute" if it is the the CRA who is responsible for noting the dispute.

I have to disagree on this one.


JohnM

 

The CRA notice of "consumer disputes this item - reinvestigation in progress" is on the account only until the dispute either comes back as "verified" or the accout is deleted after the investigation.

This is a temporary dispute notice the permanent notice of "consumer disputes this item" can only be added by the CA and remains with the account until it ages off your credit report

We may be mixing apples (temporary note) vs oranges (permanent notation). I agree that the apple is a CRA note the orange can only come from the CA, who must place that when verifing the account.

TU's software lacks the ability to add this temporary notice but is capable of compling with the required CA added permanent notation.



JohnM

 

I think only EXP does this right. After your dispute comes back verified, THEY note it as item disputed by consumer. That's the CRA, not the CA or OC. When the creditor goes in and notes the account it says Account information disputed by consumer (Meets requirement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act). If EXP can do it right, why can't the other 2??

 

Charlie,

I went back and read the FCRA section regading info in a credit report:

That seems to say that the the CRA must note the fact and keep that notation on regardless of the outcome of an investigation. They might claim the notation "this imformation was verified on date xx/xx/xxxx and remained unchanged" implies a dispute and gives the results. But I change my opinion and agree with you the CRA does have an obligation to note the account as "Consumer disputes".

Good call, Charlie!

JohnM

 

Charlie, doesn't EXP follow the law? On my reports, they are all noted correctly. On EQ, it tells you if a TL is in dispute, but when the dispute is over, it doesn't note anywhere that it has ever been in dispute.

 

Please search for "Marie"''s letter to win easy lawsuit deletions from TU. They ARE supposed to mark "in dispute" and they know this. Mr. Richman is handing you a load of sh**, hoping you won't catch them on this and many other violations they commit regularly.

They are an easy target for a lawsuit in my opinion.

 

Charlie,

The way I read the FCRA text that I quoted above, the dispute notation should remain on the TL, both EQ and EX remove the "in dispute " note after it is verified, this DOES seem to be a violation.

JohnM

 

Charlie,

I have been lucky in that all my disputes with EQ have ended with the derog either deleted or updated to reflect a positive status (hence no notation was needed).

I have one EXP account that has been disputed three times and it is not noted as "in dispute" it shows "this account was verified on date xx/xx/xxxx and remains unchanged", and of course my TU (TU=Totally Useless?) disputes have never been noted.


JohnM