Jump to content

Dispute over 30 days


Swede
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok need some help please. Disputed with CRA on July 27, account is still showing as "in dispute". I called EX, and I got Alecia on the phone and low and behold, she was very nice and tried as much as she could to help.

Alicia: The OC responded to us on August 8. Normally, they use codes to communicate with us and the codes didn't match the ones we currently have to this account so it's been sent to our "special investigations" unit (is this the FBI??) They are now trying to contact the OC on the phone to clear up what they wanted us to report.

Me: By law, the investigation should be completed in 30 days

Alicia: The OC must respond within 30 days and since they did, the time is extended

Me: Indefinately???

Alicia: No

Me: Then how much longer do you need? They responded almost a month ago and you still haven't gotten them on the phone.

Alicia: I will send a note to this unit reminding them of the time lapsed and that you are inquiring about it. I will tell them to call you if they have any questions.

Me: There shouldn't be many questions, it's clearly incorrect as it's reporting a year before it was opened. When should I expect results?

Alicia: Yea, that is indeed strange. I can't tell you when you'll have this resolved.

Me: Great- thanks!

So, what's the deal on this? Is this within the 15 day extension or?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confused -- I have seen mention of this 15 day extension before, and I always got the impression that if the creditor sends new information, the CRA gets a 15 day extension. Then I actually read the section, and what it says here is that if the consumer sends new information, the CRA gets a 15 day extension. Am I missing something? Is there another section that somewhere that I should be reading?

"§ 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i]

(a) Reinvestigations of disputed information.

(1) Reinvestigation required.

(A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer.

(B) Extension of period to reinvestigate. Except as provided in subparagraph ©, the 30-day period described in subparagraph (A) may be extended for not more than 15 additional days if the consumer reporting agency receives information from the consumer during that 30-day period that is relevant to the reinvestigation." [Emphasis added]

I don't see anything in here that says if the OC responds within 30 days, the time is extended, so wtf is Alecia talking about? :notsure: ? Can somebody please point me to that section of the FCRA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL- I never claimed Alecia to be a rocket scientist- clearly she's a complete moron. But then I called the FTC and spoke to James and he says "well, it's if the consumer OR the furnisher provides more information" I said "then why does the section not mention the furnisher" and he says "well it's supposed to" So, I had to write him off as an idiot too. Are we the only smart ones left???

Either way, I checked my report at EX again and the dispute has been resolved so I called back and this time, they said it wasn't a question of exentending the time, but their internal system was flawed (yea no ****) and that the update had not worked so they had to do it manually and that's why it took longer. I told her I found it interesting that 2 hours after I called, the system worked and they were able to VERIFY the information :mad:

Whatever! I hate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is SUCH BS!!!! They have 30 days to prove it or remove it, and I don't see anything in the law that gives them more time just because their internal system is flawed (gee, what a shock it was to find that out -- NOT).

If it weren't so frustrating for you, it would actually be kind of funny. The guy at the FTC saying, "Well, it's supposed to." LOL, I am sure Congress would be gratified to hear that according to James at the FTC they messed up by forgetting to include "or the furnisher" in the language of the law.

So, how is it reporting now? Does it still show as reported a year before it opened? If so, Experian is in violation for reporting information that anyone who can read and has an IQ higher than their shoe size can see is incorrect. If I were you, I would request a description of the procedure they used to verify -- since they apparently aren't providing those without a subpoena, that puts them in violation again. Then you can sue their sad asses.

What's ironic about all this is that most of us probably didn't start out this process trying to make it adversarial. I mean, I wasn't looking for a fight, I was looking for help. I wasn't thinking about sueing anyone, I just wanted them to fix their mistakes. They have proven to be so inept, so obstructive, so unhelpful, and SO just plain stupid, that now I can't WAIT to sue them. I don't get this at all -- they behave as if we are trying to get into the vault and steal their gold or something. Has anybody else noticed that? That they defend their mistakes as if those mistakes had some great value to them, and they are just not going to let go, come hell or high water. I just don't get it at all. :notsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTC must have a lot of idiots working for them. I spoke with one this AM, her name was Wendy. (I posted this on another board so forgive the repetition) I asked her, "how long does a CA have to answer my debt validation letter." and also "how long does a CRA have before unverifiable entries must be removed." She said, "30 days usually, but it's not a federal law, contact your state atty general." I asked her, "so, CA's can take up to 5 years or longer to validate?" she said, "I'm not an attorney, contact your state attorney's office, have a nice day." Then hung up. So, according to the FTC, CA's can take as long as they want to verify, and the CRA's dont have to remove entries if the CA's respond by saying "resolution pending, under investigation." I've had one on my report since I disputed in April, and can't get it removed. Called Equifax this AM and was told by "Colleen", that a CA can take up to a minimum of 6 months to verify, depending on their inhouse policies. What a bunch of crock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand this, the CA is not allowed to engage in collection activities until they validate the debt. Continuing to report to the CRAs counts as a collection activity, so the CA is in violation.

Come to think of it, this is kind of a catch-22 -- they are required to report the account as in dispute, but at the same time, they are not allowed to continue reporting the account. Hmmmmm, maybe I have this wrong. What does anybody else think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Yea total BS, maybe all the money they have to fork out to settle outside court, they can’t afford to upgrade their system to flawlessly integrate with furnisher’s sytems- who knows. I should say “you’re SUPPOSED to be one of the big three, why can’t you join the others in this century??”

Anyway, the same day we discussed this they managed to fix the system to show that it indeed is verified and reported before opened. I’m sending a hate mail to the OC as they verified without marking my dispute (I had sent them a letter as well) if they don’t fix I guess I’ll have to send the intent to sue and see what happens.

I will also ask for the procedural description like you suggested I doubt I’ll get anywhere. Like you say, with an IQ of a small child’s shoe, how can one expect them to know the laws, hell, they probably can't even walk and chew gum at the same time?

I’m with you on the not wanting a controversy. This particular account is a charge off from an OC and they’re sooooo un-cooperative. Probably should sue just to get paid for all the freaking time and money spent on green cards. :

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Swede, I feel your pain, man :mad: I am getting to hate these people. I started out just wanting to get some stuff fixed, but besides being uneducated as to the law that governs their conduct, and besides being stubborn and unresponsive, and besides being like talking to a damned wall, they keep coming up with new policies that are in direct violation of the law. I mean, everybody makes mistakes, and I can understand if it was an honest mistake, but these are business practices that they do on purpose, and I am getting really pissed about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.