Validation - Yeah, right

Dear Caligirl,

You said; "and a letter from the CRA stating that they would notify the CRA's of payment??". Don't you mean a letter from the CA or OC to the CRA?

 

hehehe,

Ok well... you have a real case. These CRA's are stamping stuff verified just so they can move on to something else. Your next step will be to effectively threaten a law suit and DEMAND removal, while at the same time demanding procedures.

This is past the verification stage.

Good luck and keep us posted.

 

BTW CaliGirl,

I do have some great case law in this regard if you want it.

 

Butch -

Would you mind posting the case law?

Thanks!

 

Well see ... I opened my big mouth and put myself to work. lolol

I know there are 3-4 cases that address the following point. After mentioning I had case law I found it hard to remember it all and where exactly I saw it. Anyway here's one of them, which basically says that their silly, routine little verification method is woefully inadequate.

http://www.proselitigant.net/wwwthr...umber=10&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&part=

CUSHMAN, v. TRANS UNION CORPORATION 115 F.3d 220, *; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 13576, **

We hold that in order to fulfill its obligation [**16] under § 1681i(a) "a credit reporting agency may be required, in certain circumstances, to verify the accuracy of its initial source of information." Henson, 29 F.3d at 287. We further hold that "whether the credit reporting agency has a duty to go beyond the original source will depend" on a number of factors. Id. One of these is "whether the consumer has alerted the reporting agency to the possibility that the source may be unreliable or the reporting agency itself knows or should know that the source is unreliable."

I think FTC Vs. Performace Capital Management addesses this too, as well as the recently discussed Nelson Vs. Chase Manhatten, (but I wouldn't swear to that one). I'll go check as soon as I can.

 

Sorry Girls,

I haven't forgotten. I've been slammed.

Here is another case law item that should help you. Also on Whyspers case law board at the link above;


Richardson V. Fleet, Wq. et al;

"The Court declines to say that relying on creditors for accurate credit information constitutes [*12] a reasonable procedure as a matter of law where, as here, the credit reporting agency had reason to know of the dispute between the plaintiffs and Equifax. See Bryant v. TRW, 689 F.2d 72, 77 (6th Cir. 1982) (where agency knew of dispute between consumer and creditors, confirming consumer's credit information with creditors constituted unreasonable procedure); Barron v. Trans Union Corp., 82 F. Supp. 2d at 1295-96. 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. See Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280, 285 (7th Cir. 1994) (credit reporting agency entitled to rely on court dockets to correctly recite consumer's credit history absent notice that information is flawed); Gill v. Kostroff, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1161, Civ.A. 98-930- T17A, 2000 WL 141258, at *6 (M.D. Fla. 2000).


Thus, "[a] [*13] 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." Henson, 29 F.3d at 286."

I'll keep lookin.

 

Geez thank you, it was getting hard.

LOL

Good Luck and keep us posted.

 

(Butch) could you take a look at my thread "Veteran Board Members Please READ. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Specially if this is related. I spoke about you in that thread so it would be a fair CC. Thank you

 

An EXCELLENT find, compliments of SCMomof5, at:

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=214415#post214415



CASELAW ON MAXIMUM ACCURACY

FAYE A. SCHOENDORF, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
U.D. REGISTRY, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents -- Calif Court of Appeals -- Complete case at http://www.cfac.org/Attachments/Sch...D_Registry.htm.

UD Reg is a CRA of sorts. They declined to update the plaintiff's report because they said it was correct as reported. Plaintiff sent supporting documentation (letters from neighbors disputing the events described in the report), copy of cancelled check showing the landlord had settled and paid HER. UD's defense was basically "this is all in the public record -- we're sorry she doesn't like the public record, but we're just reporting it as it appears."

The court said, "On appeal UDR contends that it was not required to make any changes in plaintiff' s report because the information she provided was not a matter of public record. We conclude that plaintiff made a sufficient showing that UDR should have modified her report even if the additional information was not contained in court files or similar sources. Accordingly, we reverse.

"UDR overlooks its broader obligations under the statutes as a credit reporting agency. Both [the] CCRAA and FCRA require 'maximum possible' accuracy. (Civ. Code, ÂË? 1785.14, subd. (b); 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b).) This means that a report violates the statutes when it is misleading or incomplete, even if it is technically accurate. . . . 'Congress did not limit the Act's mandate to reasonable procedures to assure only technical accuracy; to the contrary, the Act requires reasonable procedures to assure "maximum accuracy." The Act's self-stated purpose is "to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit . . . in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information." 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b). Certainly reports containing factually correct information that nonetheless mislead their readers are neither maximally accurate nor fair to the consumer who is the subject of the reports.'" (Cisneros v. U.D. Registry, Inc., supra, 39 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 579-580, italics added.)

 

That case link is wrong, try:

http://www.cfac.org/CaseLaw/Cases/Schendorf_v_UD_Registry.html