I have a question. Let's say you dispute a debt being listed on your credit report as "Account Not Mine." It comes back as verified. You then later dispute it as, "Paid off in full" and it comes back verified. A month later you prove the debt never even existed. Now, was the collection agency required when receiving the first dispute to investigate the balance when you disputed it as "Account Not Mine" and the second time when you disputed it as "Paid off in full," were they required to investigate that the account is yours? The reason I ask this is according to: § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies (b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute. (1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall (A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information See, according to the above, they only have to conduct an investigation in regards to the disputed information. Now, I am wondering if the FCRA is talking about the disputed information meaning what the consumer is disputing (that the account is not his, that the account was paid in full, etc) or in regards to the disputed information meaning the entire account itself. The reason being is, when I bring about my lawsuit against this CA for verifing their entry numerous times despite the account being paid in full, I am wondering if I can hold them accountable for times in which I disputed the account as "Account Not Mine" because technically, I was not disputing the amount of the debt. So, does everyone see where I am going with this? Is the collection agency required to verify every single piece of information they are reporting when receiving a dispute despite that piece of information not specifically being disputed? Another example would be disputing a $100 debt with a late payment history as never late twice and then finding out four months later that the debt itself never even existed. Were they required to investigate the $100 debt or just the payment history?
Sunhawk, They are only allowed to report accurate and complete information; that's their responsibility. They are responsible for updating that accurate and complete information. So, once you've provided notice of dispute, they are required to investigate and report back their findings to the CRA, as well as ALL CRA's it reports to. Given the opportunity you gave them, it would plain be irresponsible on their part to not ensure that the entire TL was accurate and complete. So, they may only have to investigate the disputed information but they aren't allowed to report anything in the first place that isn't accurate and complete. Sassy
Hi Sassy, Thank you for your reply. Although I agree with you 100%, the requirement to report accurate information is 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a). However, a private individual is unable to sue for 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) violations. An individual is only able to sue for 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) violations. And, therefore, I can only sue them if they fail to properly investigate a dispute. Therefore, although, under subsection a, they are required to report accurate information, since they can't be held liable for it by me, I am trying to find out if, under subsection b, they are required to investigate everything. Because, if they are not, I can't technically hold them responsible for failing to fix a past due notation if I dispute the account as not mine. Do you understand where I am going with this?
Re: Re: Complete Investigation required?? I'm flying with ya ;-) Have you read the FTC's Brief on Nelson v Chase Manhattan? Nelson disputes a BK notation with both Chase and the CRA. Chase updates the notation but it doesn't resolve the problem Nelson is having. He sues for failure to take adequate steps to address the dispute regarding the information furnished. They don't specifically address the entire TL versus the notation -- the TL was positive except for that notation. Hmmmmm, I suppose it would depend on how that information is submitted to CRA's by the furnishers. Can they submit one piece of information at a time? If you dispute online it doesn't reflect only 1 piece of information being disputed, it shows the entire TL. When the CRA's respond that something is verified they list a date and the date is attached to the TL, not an individual piece of information within the TL. If you dispute a piece of information on a positive TL frequently the entire TL is deleted. The way you are posing the question, if you dispute something as not mine, the furnisher would only have to investigate whether it is yours or not, and that determination doesn't necessarily have to do with anything else within the TL. You're absolutely right about the wording and in the CRA's responsibility section it says "that item of information" and in the furnishers section it seems to read more generally to me, "any information" "all relevant information." Interesting. It appears to be based on their procedures for receiving information. Still, it is seeming macroscopic to me, how can you only investigate one sliver of the TL without reviewing the rest? When you can't report anything that isn't accurate and complete -- understanding that an individual doesn't have a cause of action there. That cause of action however was only recently decided. Unless, if investigated by phone that is all that is questioned maybe? Perhaps the same is true on their postcards for disputes? I'm creating more questions than I'm answering. How is that for rambling, LOL, sorry. I do understand where you're heading and I'll see if I can't find something more specific in the morning. I do like how your brain works! Sassy
Re: Re: Complete Investigation required?? No, you were a great help. Sometimes, the best way to find an answer is to ask more questions. You bring up some excellent points and I will be sure to use those points in my case. It may come down to a judgement call on interpreting the FCRA but in my opinion, I would agree with you that, they should be investigating their entire entry. According to: Performance Capital Management, Inc., U.S. v. (Central District of California, Southern Division), File No. 982 3542: They state: In order to comply with Section 623(b) when a consumer disputes the accuracy of information reported by the defendant to a consumer reporting agency, defendant shall either verify the information with the original account records within the time period set forth in the Fair Credit Reporting Act or take all necessary steps to delete the information from the files of all consumer reporting agencies to which the information was reported. In any situation where the defendant either knows that no original records exist, or is informed by the original creditor that no records exist, the defendant shall, within five business days after receiving the consumer dispute, notify all consumer reporting agencies to which the information has been provided that the information is to be deleted from the file of the consumer who has disputed the account; Now, they don't specifically state what they mean by "information" but I think it is obvious that they mean the entire tradeline. And, if it is more complex than that, your points really help to support the idea that "information" refers to the "ENTIRE" tradeline. Your post helped me out a great bunch.
Re: Re: Complete Investigation required?? Sunhawk, I'm glad I was able to help, or at least for you having said so. LOL, thank you! I can't find a darn thing that addresses the specific information within a TL versus an entire TL relative to required investigations under the furnishers section. The only other thing I thought of was whether or not you've checked your state laws to see if they may have additional clarification or requirements of furnishers of information. I'm very curious how this will turn out for you. Sassy
