cinnamngrl

Members
  • Content Count

    472
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by cinnamngrl


  1. @cinnamngrl

     

     

    Responding to the request and providing documentation are 2 different things.  A response can be "we investigated and the information is correct."   There is no part of the FCRA that states that a response to a consumer in any way includes documentation.

     

    Again, even though the FCRA requires a furnisher to respond, you could not sue the furnisher if they didn't respond.

    You can sue if you have also filed a CRA dispute


  2. I did once, a very long time ago before I ever actually read the statutes and learned the laws.  I simply went by what some website (probably one of those boards that have since closed down) which outlined a 3 page letter to send to the OC and which cited parts of the FCRA, which I know today was mostly inapplicable to the matter at hand.  The results I got was; "We investigated your concerns and find that this is being reported accurately.  Thanks, OC."

     

    After spending another couple years learning the consumer laws and reading statutes and case laws, the next time I disputed an OC TL and it was verified, I went straight to arbitration for their violation of verifying incorrect information to the CRA.  30 days later, I had the TL removed and a check in my hand for their violations.  To me, that is much more easier, effective and efficient than a large letter writing campaign and filing complaints with groups that may or may not do anything.

     

    You are completely welcome to use the 623 Method.  All I am saying is that I find it to be pointless and without teeth.  I prefer to use the parts of the FCRA that give me the right to sue or arbitrate when the outcome is not desirable.  Those methods have worked well for me.

    I did use it and my credit score is 774

    Would you try again?


  3. Where is that stated in the FCRA?   Where in the FCRA does it require furnishers to send documentation to the consumer?

    The law states that furnisher has to make a reasonable effort to investigate the dispute.

     

    (E) Duty of person after receiving notice of dispute. After receiving

    a notice of dispute from a consumer pursuant to subparagraph

    (D), the person that provided the information in dispute to a

    consumer reporting agency shall –

    (i) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;

    (ii) review all relevant information provided by the consumer

    with the notice;

    (iii) complete such person’s investigation of the dispute and report

    the results of the investigation to the consumer before

    the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) within

    which a consumer reporting agency would be required to

    complete its action if the consumer had elected to dispute

    the information under that section; and

    84

    § 623 - 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2

    (iv) if the investigation finds that the information reported was

    inaccurate, promptly notify each consumer reporting agency

    to which the person furnished the inaccurate information

    of that determination and provide to the agency any

    correction to that information that is necessary to make the

    information provided by the person accurate.


  4. The last (and EVERY) response I got to an MOV request was a generic form letter describing the steps the CRA takes when a TL dispute is submitted to them.   They never included the requested name & address of the person that verified the information to them.  This is a violation of 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii).  However, in order to reduce their exposure to this violation, the CRA decided to remove the TL (regardless of the fact that the furnisher verified the information a couple weeks prior).  If they do not remove the TL and also do not provide all of the requested information as required under 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii) then I would file an arbitration claim against the CRA.  CRAs tend to settle rather quickly and can include TL deletion as part of the settlement.

    How many deletions, and how many non deletions?

    Are you saying that you have not contacted the credit furnishers?


  5. @cinnamngrl

     

     

    The last response I got from a CRA in regard to a MOV merely included the name and address of the furnisher, that they had contacted the furnisher, and the furnisher verified the information.    Now, if I had proof that information was incorrect, I could have nailed the CRA, but I didn't have any proof.

    If you had contacted the credit furnisher directly, you would be able to prove whether the information was correct.

    1. The data that the furnisher sends you must equal the information they send the CRA.

    2. The CRA does not have to investigate anything but whether they are reporting the information they get.


  6. @cinnamngrl

     

     

     

    The CRA has to provide you with "a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information shall be provided to the consumer by the agency, including the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available." (quoted from 1681s-2(6)(B)(3))

     

    The MOV is the responsibility of the CRAs, not the furnisher.   When the CRAs response to the MOV, if you can prove information provided and verified was incorrect, and the CRA refuses to correct or remove that information, you have a violation against the CRA.

    How do you "prove information provided and verified was incorrect..." without a 623 inquiry ?

    Let me put a different way, describe the last response you got to an MOV?


  7. Liable under what law?

    They are not legally liable.

    I understand the method clearly, it just has no teeth. You were lucky that the business decided to do the right thing out of the goodness of their heart. If they hadn't (as is the case in the majority of the cases I have seen and dealt with), you have no legal recourse other than to continue to write letters until you are blue in the hand. I prefer to bypass the extra work, time and expense and only use the methods that allow me to use arbitration or courts to force the hand of someone who does not comply with the law.

    If you dispute first with the CRA, then directly with credit furnisher. The furnisher is subject to 1k penalty per violation for sending information to the CRA that they can't or won't conduct a reasonable investigation.

    The combination is important if you only dispute directly with the credit furnisher then there is no penalty for not having records they still have to fix them but there's no legal penalty.

    $1000 is a fairly low fine and if that's what you mean by no teeth you have to remember that in these lawsuits the victim will recover all legal costs as well. But I find the best thing to do at this point is to file a complaint with the federal regulatory agency.


  8. 1. This website actually has a great explanation of The 623 method. For some reason I can't paste the link from my iPad.

    2. If you start by disputing with the CRA and then dispute with credit furnisher, and that furnisher does not respond with evidence to support/agree with what that credit furnisher is telling the CRA then that company is liable.

    This method has worked very well for me, I am sorry you don't understand it. My best example would be Bank of America.

    I had several negative Bank of America entries on my credit report. One was so old it was actually listed as Fleet Bank. I sent several different letters to Bank of America disputing this account. Turns out this was actually a collection agency account and they listed it on my credit report as fleet bank but it was actually being furnished by collection agency. So in the same week I received two different responses one was a letter from Bank of America saying that won't have any record of this negative account and one was a phone call from someone at Bank of America saying the information was accurate. I pointed out that I was holding a letter in my hand that said they did not have records of the account and they would contact the three credit reporting agency's to delete the entry.

    Another negative account was A visa that I had paid off but there were they seem to have some records of late payments. When I contacted Bank of America they stated that they would drop all lates older than two years as policy. I provided records of my own that disputed a couple of late payments and they deleted the whole account.


  9. I am not knocking MOV. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Basically you are saying to the CRA that "how can you report this when I can't even get the trade line reporter (original creditor) to reply to my inquiry?"

    CRA's use an internal electronic system that verifies only whether they are reporting the information that the company send them. Credit reporting agency's do not make any independent information of whether that information is accurate.

    623 is the section of the law that guarantees you a right to a response from the original creditor. The original creditor has to send you records that support the way they're reporting your account to the credit reporting agency's. True, The law does not require them to make any response but they can't continue to report your account if they can't Reproduce the same data that causes them to report the Account as delinquent. The law does say that the reasonable time period is the same as defined in 611 1. (30 days).

    So I would point out that method of verification would not work very well unless you've already made a 623 inquiry.


  10. @cinnamngrl

    There is no legal requirement for a TL to be deleted due to no response from the furnisher. Only the CRA has a legal obligation to respond to any dispute within 30 days.

    I have never understood the reason for the "623 method" beecause there is no legal authority behind it. Once the CRA has verified incorrect information, a violation of the FCRA has already occured. At that point, you either sue, arbitrate to force a removal or correction. The MOV is an option to try before suing or arbitrating because it is easier and sometimes an effecive alternative way to get a deletion. If the MOV does not work, they may have just added another FCRA violation to your claim too.

    § 623 - 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2

    page90image1080

    (E) Duty of person after receiving notice of dispute. After receiving a notice of dispute from a consumer pursuant to subparagraph (D), the person that provided the information in dispute to a consumer reporting agency shall –

    (i) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed infor- mation;

    (ii) review all relevant information provided by the consumer with the notice;

    (iii) complete such person’s investigation of the dispute and re- port the results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1)within which a consumer reporting agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had elected to dispute the information under that section; and

    (iv) if the investigation finds that the information reported was inaccurate, promptly notify each consumer reporting agen- cy to which the person furnished the inaccurate informa- tion of that determination and provide to the agency any correction to that information that is necessary to make the information provided by the person accurate.

    The time period is 30 days


  11. Thanks Cheese

    Got 5 verified letters.

    Sent MOVs to all 5.

    Thanks Cheese

    Got 5 verified letters.

    Sent MOVs to all 5.

    Ok so I understand you.

    You sent dispute letters to the credit reporting agency's.

    The credit reporting agency's verify the trade lines.

    Then you said method of verification letters to who?

    I do 623 like this

    I send a dispute letter to the credit reporting agency. They verify.

    Then I send a letter to the owner of the trade line. This letter asks for records of the the account that explains how the trade line is

    reported.

    Wait 30 days. No response= deletion required by federal law.