Re: Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION -Additionally, FACTA 623 (a) (8) IS NOT "LIVE" YET. It is a "fact gathering" section. -It's my prediction that after the "fact gathering" is done, Congress will apply the liability of 616 and 617 to 623 (a) (8). BUT, in the meantime, FORGOT YOU EVER READ section (a)! -FUN4U2, I actually appreciate being taken to task on these issues. It really helps dispell misconceptions and is beneficial for others who read these posts.
Re: Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION you keep quoting the wrong codes and you are taking them out of context. if what you were saying was true, no consumer or attorney would be suing the CRA or furnishers for reporting inaccurate, unverifable information. like myself for example, under federal law my attorney is suing both the furnisher of information ( creditor) and the CRA for failing to remove inaccurate, unverifable information from my report after being requested to do so in writing. I disputed an acct with the CRA came back as remains ( cap 1) pursuant to the FCRA I sent a written dispute to the furnisher which also happens to be a creditor and requested that they flag my report as disputed and I requested that they provide me with verification of the acct that they are reporting within 30 days. they have not done so and continue to update my report each month to increase the balance. a creditor can claim the info they report to the CRA is accurate , but how does the consumer know it is just because they say so? the facta law enables a consumer to be able to verify this information now. its an argumentive point, bottom line if the furnisher being a creditor or ca can not prove the alledged debt they can not legally collect it. incase you didnt know all the CRA require from a furnisher is to verify the consumers name, add, ss# no actually proof is supplied so I could in a sense contact a CRA and claim I am with co XXX and give them your personal info and claim you owe me XXX $ and boom its on your report. the CRA dont have the time nor do they care if what they report is accurate they jsut want $ so they will do what they are paid to do and let the consumer deal with the dispute. do u see my point ?
Re: Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION Again, YOU ARE MISINFORMED! "if what you were saying was true, no consumer or attorney would be suing the CRA or furnishers for reporting inaccurate, unverifable information." -NO, READ MY POST AGAIN. SECTION 623 (b) IS ACTIONABLE BY THE CONSUMER, or consumer's attorney. -BUT, this requires a dispute to be sent TO THE REPORTING AGENCY FIRST. "like myself for example, under federal law my attorney is suing both the furnisher of information ( creditor) and the CRA for failing to remove inaccurate, unverifable information from my report after being requested to do so in writing. " -YOUR ATTORNEY IS NOT SUING THE FURNISHER for failing to comply with FCRA if a dispute was SENT DIRECTLY TO THEM FROM YOU! -If you are suing the reporting agency AND the furnisher IT IS FOR NOT CONDUCTING A REASONABLE INVESTIGTATION WHICH IS REQUIRED BY FCRA/FACTA 623 (b)! "pursuant to the FCRA I sent a written dispute to the furnisher which also happens to be a creditor and requested that they flag my report as disputed and I requested that they provide me with verification of the acct that they are reporting within 30 days. " -And again, YOU FAILED TO CITE THE SECTION YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT under the FCRA. IT DOES NOT EXCIST. -A close section would be FDCPA 809, in which an original creditor could be concidered a debt collector if they were using a 3rd party name, and they failed to report the account in dispute after you sent them a dispute. -IT may be wise to contact your attorney and educate yourself on what he is doing for you. I would be willing to bet $ he has filed a suit claiming violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 (b) - I am not sure how to get this through to you, but STARTING BY READING the FCRA 623 might help
Re: Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION "incase you didnt know all the CRA require from a furnisher is to verify the consumers name, add, ss# no actually proof is supplied" -Yes, you are correct. THIS IS HOW IT IS DONE. IT HAD ALSO BEEN LONG ESTABLISHED THAT THIS IS NOT A REASONALBE INVESTIGTAION AS REQUIRED BY LAW "so I could in a sense contact a CRA and claim I am with co XXX and give them your personal info and claim you owe me XXX $ and boom its on your report" -NO. Being a subscriber required a relationship with the reporting agency in the form of a contract " the CRA dont have the time nor do they care if what they report is accurate they jsut want $ so they will do what they are paid to do and let the consumer deal with the dispute. " -WHO else has to deal with the disputes ? -You are correct in your line of thinking about the reporting agencies greed for $. BUT WHAT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, THAT UNLESS YOU HAVE VALID VIOLATIONS OF LAW, YOU ARE POWERLESS AGAINST THEM. -READ READ AND REREAD THE LAWS. IN THIS CASE FCRA 623 FCRA/FACT 623 (a) (8) -AGAIN.......623 (a) IS NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE CONSUMER. -READ 623 (c) "(c) Limitation on liability. Except as provided in section 621(c)(1)(B), sections 616 and 617 do not apply to any violation of-- (1) subsection (a) of this section, including any regulations issued thereunder; (2) subsection (e) of this section, except that nothing in this paragraph shall limit, expand, or otherwise affect liability under section 616 or 617, as applicable, for violations of subsection (b) of this section; or 75 February 11, 2004 (3) subsection (e) of section 615. (d) Limitation on enforcement. The provisions of law described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (c) (other than with respect to the exception described in paragraph (2) of subsection (c)) shall be enforced exclusively as provided under section 621 by the Federal agencies and officials and the State officials identified in section 621." -616 and 617 are the "punishment" sections available to a consumer -Again this is a HUGE and COMMON misunderstanding by consumers. -TAKE YOUR CURRENT VERSION OF THE FACTA AND DELETE 623 (a) LOL
Re: Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION SO everyone else can understand what we are talking about, here is what FUN4U2 is talking about when he refers to in "pursuant to the FCRA I sent a written dispute to the furnisher which also happens to be a creditor and requested that they flag my report as disputed and I requested that they provide me with verification of the acct that they are reporting within 30 days." FCRA/FACT 2004 § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies[15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] (a) Duty of Furnishers of Information to Provide Accurate Information (8) Ability of Consumer to Dispute Information Directly with Furnisher -What consumers fail to realize, SECTION (a) IS NOT ACTIONABLE BY THE CONSUMER NO MATTER WHAT SECTION (a) SAYS
Re: Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION Forgot to add the link to The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003. This is the FCRA 2004 version http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/031224fcra.pdf
Re: Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION In almost all of these cases the charge is; § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] {B}. "Failure to Maintian Reasonable Procedures to Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy", and/or, failure to perform a "Reasonable Investigation". Great Discussion BTW. .
Re: Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION Butch, Your b was too big LOL its (b) SILLY !! -also, EVERYONE should read cases relevent to this. Here is a recent one which it a popular cite Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, NA, No. 03-1235 , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT , December 4, 2003, Argued, February 11, 2004, Decided Sign up for www.lexisone.com its free. DO a CITATION SEARCH FOR 357 F.3d 426 and read the case "MBNA America Bank, N.A. (MBNA) appeals a judgment entered against it following a jury verdict in favor of Linda Johnson in her action alleging that MBNA violated a provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), see 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681s-2(b)(1) (West 1998) (amended Dec. 4, 2003), by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation of Johnson's dispute concerning an MBNA account appearing [*2] on her credit report. Finding no reversible error, we affirm."
Re: Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION FUN4U2, were you able to get a hold of your attorney about this? I was thinking, what if the attorney really is trying to sue under 623 (a)(8), as the info suggests. This could be devastating! Let us know, I am quite curious now
Re: Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> -Unless your state law also defines original creditors as DEBT COLLECTORS, 1*ORIGINAL CREDITORS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO REPLY, LET ALONE SEND THE CONSUMER ANYTHING if the consumer disputes an account with the original creditor. 2*-ONLY after the consumer sends a dispute to the REPORTING AGENCY, is the "furnisher of information" required to reply TO THE REPORTING AGENCY. hiding90 3*Verifying is equivalent to "parroting" exactly what the furnisher tells the CRA. CAwatchdog ===================================* 1*What about the fair billing act? Don't it cover this? 2*So then how do you dispute account errors if the oc isn't reporting to the cra? 3*Exactly! ONLY after the consumer sends a dispute to the REPORTING AGENCY, is the "furnisher of information" required to reply TO THE REPORTING AGENCY. However the "furnisher of information" is still required to reply to the copnsumer concerning a dispute either in or out of court. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
Re: Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> -Unless your state law also defines original creditors as DEBT COLLECTORS, 1*ORIGINAL CREDITORS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO REPLY, LET ALONE SEND THE CONSUMER ANYTHING if the consumer disputes an account with the original creditor. 2*-ONLY after the consumer sends a dispute to the REPORTING AGENCY, is the "furnisher of information" required to reply TO THE REPORTING AGENCY. hiding90 3*Verifying is equivalent to "parroting" exactly what the furnisher tells the CRA. CAwatchdog ===================================* 1*What about the fair billing act? Don't it cover this? 2*So then how do you dispute account errors if the oc isn't reporting to the cra? 3*Exactly! ONLY after the consumer sends a dispute to the REPORTING AGENCY, is the "furnisher of information" required to reply TO THE REPORTING AGENCY. However the "furnisher of information" is still required to reply to the copnsumer concerning a dispute either in or out of court. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
Re: Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> -Unless your state law also defines original creditors as DEBT COLLECTORS, 1*ORIGINAL CREDITORS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO REPLY, LET ALONE SEND THE CONSUMER ANYTHING if the consumer disputes an account with the original creditor. 2*-ONLY after the consumer sends a dispute to the REPORTING AGENCY, is the "furnisher of information" required to reply TO THE REPORTING AGENCY. hiding90 3*Verifying is equivalent to "parroting" exactly what the furnisher tells the CRA. CAwatchdog ===================================* 1*What about the fair billing act? Don't it cover this? 2*So then how do you dispute account errors if the oc isn't reporting to the cra? 3*Exactly! ONLY after the consumer sends a dispute to the REPORTING AGENCY, is the "furnisher of information" required to reply TO THE REPORTING AGENCY. However the "furnisher of information" is still required to reply to the copnsumer concerning a dispute either in or out of court. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> -Unless your state law also defines original creditors as DEBT COLLECTORS, 1*ORIGINAL CREDITORS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO REPLY, LET ALONE SEND THE CONSUMER ANYTHING if the consumer disputes an account with the original creditor. 2*-ONLY after the consumer sends a dispute to the REPORTING AGENCY, is the "furnisher of information" required to reply TO THE REPORTING AGENCY. hiding90 3*Verifying is equivalent to "parroting" exactly what the furnisher tells the CRA. CAwatchdog ===================================* 1*What about the fair billing act? Don't it cover this? 2*So then how do you dispute account errors if the oc isn't reporting to the cra? 3*Exactly! ONLY after the consumer sends a dispute to the REPORTING AGENCY, is the "furnisher of information" required to reply TO THE REPORTING AGENCY. However the "furnisher of information" is still required to reply to the copnsumer concerning a dispute either in or out of court. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION "ONLY after the consumer sends a dispute to the REPORTING AGENCY, is the "furnisher of information" required to reply TO THE REPORTING AGENCY. However the "furnisher of information" is still required to reply to the copnsumer concerning a dispute either in or out of court. " Under what law or authority?
Re: Re: Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION AWESOME! I really appreciate your thoroughness when it comes down to citing law. Everyone should be backing up their statements like this unless they preface it with "IMHO"... (IMHO, of course). :; Playing nutcase and wearing down an OC, CA, or CRA without any legal ground to really stand on is, IMHO, morally fair play when you consider that in many cases the OC, CA, or CRA disregards the law themselves and figures you'll just shut up and go away. However, it is very gratifying to know that there truly are legal grounds by which you can protect your rights. Regards, Jeff
Re: Re: Re: Re: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION AWESOME! I really appreciate your thoroughness when it comes down to citing law. Everyone should be backing up their statements like this unless they preface it with "IMHO"... (IMHO, of course). :; Playing nutcase and wearing down an OC, CA, or CRA without any legal ground to really stand on is, IMHO, morally fair play when you consider that in many cases the OC, CA, or CRA disregards the law themselves and figures you'll just shut up and go away. However, it is very gratifying to know that there truly are legal grounds by which you can protect your rights. Regards, Jeff
: VALIDATION v VERIFICATION However the "furnisher of information" is still required to reply to the consumer concerning a dispute either in or out of court. " ```````````````````````````` 1*Under what law or authority? hiding90 ========================== A-50-C 1*Can they collect if they don't? ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
However the "furnisher of information" is still required to reply to the consumer concerning a dispute either in or out of court. " ```````````````````````````` Under what law or authority? hiding90 ========================== A-50-C what law or authority says they can collect without showing proof to the consumer?? ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
