Search the Community

I recently disputed an LVNV trade line with EQ & TU. Of course, both came back "Verified". I sent the following letter to both companies certified with return receipt. Dear Consumer Relations, After receiving and reviewing the results of a recent dispute filed with your company, I am now requesting the method you used to verify certain items on the credit file dated XXXXX. FCRA (a)(6)(B)(iii) states that upon request you must provide me with a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information. This includes, but is not limited to the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information and the contact information of such furnisher if reasonably available. I am requesting this for the following accounts XXXXXXXXXX As stated in FCRA 611 (a)(7) you must provide this information no later than 15 days after receiving this request. I appreciate your handling of this request in a timely manner. Both companies responded with basically the same canned response. We may search for information electronically, we update your credit file with information received, etc. No specifics as to the dispute in question. I also sent a letter to the Furnisher asking them to check the accuracy of what they are reporting with 30 days to respond. (they still have 2 weeks to respond) My question is, what is the next step with the CRA's? This is obviously their attempt at "we aren't giving you any additional information" Thanks in advance, any help is greatly appreciated.

I sent a dispute letter to all 3 CRAs on October 2018. I disputed DOFD, DOLP, Payment amount, Date Open and Date Closed. Within 30 days I received responses from all three verifying the information. Equifax verified: Date Opened: 3/31/2017 Date Closed: N/A Date of Last Payment: N/A Date of First Delinquency: July/2015 However they listed this account as OPEN with a Charge Off Amount of $0 and a payment history reporting late every month for 15 months! Experian verified: Date Opened: 3/31/2017 Date Closed: N/A Date of Last Payment: N/A Date of First Delinquency: N/A They however list this account as "On Record Until: April 2022". Wouldn't this mean the DOFD was 7 years prior to April 2022 so approx. April 2015? Experian is also listing this as OPEN. Transunion: Never verified or completed investigation. Their website state "Estimated competition May 31st, 2019". But this date changes every time I check. Should I request deletion based on this? Question 1: Should I send a MOV letter for these disputes and give them 15 days? or is it too late now since this was in Oct 2018? Question 2: Should I send a new dispute verifying ownership and if verified the send MOV for the verification of ownership? Question 3: Should I request deletion from Transunion since the investigation failed to be completed within 30 days? What's interesting is they both verified these accounts as Open, with Terms 1 month, with a high balance of $XXXX, etc. but now they are correctly listed as a collection so they verified an account that was reported incorrectly. How can I use this to my advantage?

I just started my credit repair journey after several years of letting it tank. There are several creditors who charged off different accounts, but continue to report new activity every month ($0 payment). A friend suggested to send a dispute to the data furnishers with a contract of adhesion. Ask them to remove all the negative activity that is re-aging a closed account. Then tell them that they will be entering into a new agreement, a sort of defamation contract, that specifically prohibits arbitration, that their consent will be indicated by their verifying or reporting information after the account was closed, and that by their action they agree to pay liquidated damages for each violation and each person who receives each false piece of information. The contract also adds more liquidated damages, court and attorney fees if they do not pay within a deadline after receiving demand for payment, and even more liquidated damages if they attempt to invoke arbitration. In case they do not agree with the terms, all they have to do is stop reporting and verifying any new activity. Good luck explaining why the contract is unacceptable, unless they intend to violate it. I am not a fan of adhesion contracts, but it is just the same way most banks used to add arbitration to their original contracts and many states where their headquarters are located approved those amendments and even made them a part of their laws. Does it make any sense? Could it work? Has anybody had any luck with this approach? The CRAs are next. The adhesion contract may be adapted as well, since they should know better than to allow data furnishers to re-age trade lines, but the timing must be right. So a dispute requesting deletion would be first, explaining that it is inaccurate to report both a closed account and new activity, even if the information is "verified" it is obviously inaccurate and that they would be willingly failing to investigate by allowing such a blatant contradiction. They may delete, but worst case scenario, I expect an automated response claiming they just report whatever the data furnisher tells them, implicitly admitting that they do not really do any research. Next step will be a Method of Verification (MOV) request. Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.