Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" It appears the CRAs are twisting the intent of the FCRA (surprise!). "Consumer notifies CRA directly" is in contrast to "Consumer notifies CA". The issue of credit repair companies is a red herring, since they are not mentioned in FCRA. The notifying of the CRA vs. the CA or OC matters, since each places an obligation on the party notified, and the procedure they must follow to avoid liability is outlined. The CRA must notify the reporting party, and the reporting party must obtain and forward validation information, with marking in dispute unless/until they do. In particular, they have no liability unless or until they are notified and have had a chance to follow the procedures in FCRA. FCRA does not prevent the consumer from notifying the CRA through others, such as an attorney. Nor would a CRA be wise to ignore a notification from the consumer's attorney and categorically reject it as "frivolous". Having received a notification that your dispute is "frivolous", however, I don't think you should just let it lie for 30 days, since they have put the ball back in your court, and could claim that no 30 timer was still running. Immediately send a reply pointing out their obligation to investigate under FCRA, reiterate your claims of erroneous reporting, and note their original 30 day deadline under FCRA to complete, based on the date they signed for your CRRR.
Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" I sent a dispute letter to TransUnion that they signed for on 12/17/03. They sent me a letter dated 12/19/03. "We recently received a dispute regarding your credit report from a third party that we believe operates as a credit repair organization. According to the Federal Trade Commission, credit reporting agencies are not required to process disputes submitted by third parties. In addition, our experienence shows that many credit repair organizations dispute accurate information or submit irrelevant disputes. We have reasonably determinded that the dispute sibmitted on yuor behalf is frivolous or irrelevant. For these reasons wel will not take action on the dispute." So, what I did was the day I got this, I went online and did an online dispute at TU for free using the file number used at the top of this letter that they sent me.
Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION...SORRY THIS INFORMATION IS FRIVOLOUS YOUR CLOCK IS RUNNING...30 DAYS TICK-TICK-TICK-TICK...
Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" I did notice from my PG pulls today that our TU's have dropped a few neg TL's. Why do I get the funny feeling they will pop up again in a month or two? That just seemed too easy. Oh well, another day, another dispute.
Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" I'm wondering if they are referring to the Credit Repair Organizations Act here. I don't specifically recall it mentioning how CROs can or cannot interact with CRAs, but I certainly haven't memorized it word for word.
Re: Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" I don't think so ... here is the CROA - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/ch41schII-A.html - it doesn't even mention the CRAs, it's all about the CROs obligations to the consumer ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" I didn't recall any CRO/CRA relationship being mentioned, but I find the fact that they are saying the the FTC specifically allows them to disregard disputes by CROs to be odd. The FCRA does not even mention CROs. Are there any FTC opinion letters addressing this? Just curious.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" A "light bulb moment"....... There is a simple answer to "prevent" these types of responses from the CRAs. On any WRITTEN dispute we make, we should add the same "disclosures" that are on he on-line dispute mechanisms (i.e...."..certify this is for my own report",..."agree to terms and conditions", "...understand it is a crime to ....."). The "certifying" that this is for "my own report" eliminates the possibility of the "using a CRO" response, and hence holding up the dispute process. If we look at the on-line dispute example above, the written was responded to w/ "using a CRO", yet the on-line dispute was accepted! The only difference is the "disclaimer", which we all probably overlook and just fill in to get to the dispute functions. This does NOT answer the "legal" question re: the CRAs respone, but it can prevent it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" Ive gone thru them all, and i havent seen any. someone needs to write the FTC a letter asking about this. isnt there also a class action lawsuit forming by CROs against the CRAs? that will be very interesting indeed.... I think it would be kinda funny to send the CRAs a letter that says exactly what you did, merlin. "please direct me to the portion of law which gives you permission to disregard disputes by third parties." I'm having deja-vu. i think someone said something like that in another thread, lol. weird.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" It's also not true. The FTC doesn't "allow" or "disallow" anyone to do anything. They merely enforce existing law. Turning down your dispute is predicated upon a finding that your dispute is frivolous. But that determination must be "REASONABLE". (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. I might file suit and proclaim their determination was not reasonable. .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" A quick knockoff: Date Dear Trans Union, Xxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cert mail # xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Dear Sirs: On xx/xx/xxxx TU signed for a dispute I filed, (copy enclosed). This dispute is in proper working order, signed and dated by me, and sent cert mail. TU responded with an erroneous determination that my dispute was "frivolous and/or irrelevant", claimng that the FTC permits such a decision, (copy enclosed). First, the FTC doesn't allow or disallow anything. They merely enforce existing law. § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (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. Your determination that my dispute was frivolous is not reasonable. You claimed I am using a CRO, whatever that is. I am not using a third party. Furthermore, even if I was this would not negate the authenticity of my dispute. To interfere with a business agreement between two parties, unrelated to you, may subject you to a Restraint of Trade problem. Therefore, I have detrmined that your frivolous determination is in itself frivolous, and merely a stall tactic. The FCRA provides 30 days for you to complete your investigation or delete the disputed item. I am not able to find any provisions by the FCRA or FTC which permit stall tactics. Your 30 days is up, as of xx/xx/xxxx. I will expect your investigation to be complete by then. Moreover, this letter is not "additional relevent" information to the dispute. The FCRA contemplates that such information would be about the disputed item itself, not a reminder that you have Congressionally mandated investigative responsibilities. If the item is not properly investigated in a timely manner, I will not hesitate to use the judicial system to avail myself of the rights guaranteed by the FCRA and Constitution, by filing suit. Most probably in Federal District Court, in demand of a Jury Trial. Warm Regards, Me. > Just thinkin outloud. .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" I would send them something similar, but after the 30-day period expired and reworded as an ITS letter ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" Yeah like here's what ya get for waitin to long.LOL
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" Exactly ... why give them a way to get away ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" The newly amended FCRA addresses using CRO's. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" Is it in effect already? Any news about it?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" Can a CRA explain how they don't have to respond to CROs when CROs are regulated under federal law? http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/croa/croa.htm It seems to me that if CROs couldn't initiate disputes on behalf of consumers, Congress would have made CROs illegal rather than "regulating" them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TU's "You are using a CRO response" Easy, they've been exempted from the investigation provisions. You have more dispute rights as a consumer. Sassy
