Where an agency knows of a dispute between a consumer and creditors, confirming the consumer's credit information with the creditors constitutes an unreasonable procedure. A credit reporting agency is initially entitled to rely on information contained in the reports issued by credit grantors, because it would be unduly burdensome and inefficient to require an agency to look beyond the face of every credit report. However, once notified that a consumer disputes the information contained in such records, exclusive reliance on such information is neither reasonable or justified. Thus, a credit reporting agency that has been notified of potentially inaccurate information in a consumer's credit report is in a very different position than one who has no such notice. ------------------------------------------------------------ Thanks to Grendel and humblemarc for this info. The reason I posted this is to get YOUR view on what this caselaw truly means and on how to approach it concerning stubborn accounts that have been investigated twice or more that the CRA's refuse to delete. Despite "proof" of the consumers attempt to validate or verify the debt with the source. In other words, the consumer has exhausted all means to contact the "source" has documentation of such yet the CRA's refues to delete because the "source" verifies.
