Inconstency?

yes dispute it and maybe the TL will be removed if your lucky . mention that is not yours and inaccurate and the CRA will investigate it.

 

Find a copy of Johnson v. MBNA

The quote you are looking for is where they are discussing MBNA conclusively verifying the account, despite not being able to find an application for the account, because of their document retension policy.

I hope I got the LEXIS cite right.

JOHNSON v. MBNA AMERICA BANK, NA 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 2244,*;357 F.3d 426

Additionally, MBNA argues that Johnson failed to establish that MBNA's allegedly inadequate investigation was the proximate cause of her damages because there were no other records MBNA could have examined that would have changed the results of its investigation. In particular, MBNA relies on testimony that, pursuant to its five-year document retention policy, the original account application was no longer in MBNA's possession. [*12] Even accepting this testimony, however, a jury could reasonably conclude that if the MBNA agents had investigated the matter further and determined that MBNA no longer had the application, they could have at least informed the credit reporting agencies that MBNA could not conclusively verify that Johnson was a co-obligor. n4 See 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681i(a)(5)(A) (West 1998) (providing that if disputed information "cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the consumer's file or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation") (amended Dec. 4, 2003). (Underline added.)

You will want to dispute the PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY that an account which was opened in 3/2000, could have been charged off, prior to its being opened, and demand that the data furnisher conclusively verifies the account not from a cursory review of their computer systems, but from a reasonable manual review of the actual physical documentation for the alleged account.

 

Another relevant section of Johnson. This is the proof that they must do a reasonable investigation, and not a cursory review of their electronic records.

Johnson subsequently sued MBNA, claiming, inter alia, that it had violated the FCRA by failing to conduct a proper investigation of her dispute. See 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681s-2(b)(1). A jury trial was held, and, following the presentation of Johnson's case, MBNA moved for judgment as a matter of law. That motion was denied. After the close of the evidence, the jury found that MBNA had negligently failed to comply with the FCRA, and it [*4] awarded Johnson $ 90,300 in actual damages. MBNA renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law, asserting that § 1681s-2(b)(1) only required MBNA to conduct a cursory review of its records to verify the disputed information. Alternatively, MBNA argued that even if it were required to conduct a reasonable investigation of Johnson's dispute, the evidence showed that MBNA had met that obligation. The district court again denied MBNA's motion, concluding that § 1681s-2(b)(1) required MBNA to conduct a reasonable investigation and that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that MBNA had failed to do so. (Underline added.)