Jump to content

Re-Investigation Help


InFiNiTeX
 Share

Recommended Posts

If you've received a form letter from them saying they won't reinvestigate, send them an ITS letter(AFTER the 30 days WOULD expire) demanding they delete the tradelines within 15 days...or else.

If they don't delete, file on the bastards. They have to reinvestigate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

InFiNiTeX, its nice to see the guys steppin up with thier pics! :wink:

And Xan, I agree with you! I just got a stupid a** "previously investigated" letter for both me and dh. I just sent out my disputes on the 22nd, they were signed for on the 25th and 26th and NOW THIS?!?!

Gimme a friggin break! :roll:

ITS letter, here I come! :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

InFiNiTeX... After all the reading I've done on these boards, you should really listen to Xan. 8) He knows what he's saying from first hand- experience!! Also, from what I've read, you don't even need balls to file a lawsuit against these jerks if you can prove a solid violation... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that link Morrow. I had looked at that sticky, but don't think it applies to my question. It seems to relate to the "using 3rd party" letter, which is different from "you've previously disputed and we previously investigated." Should I treat it as the same and send a similar letter to the one in the sticky (of course, modifying it to my situation)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That depends, Miami. A lot of it has to do with your wording. Did you dispute it as the same thing(i.e. not mine) both times? Did you word your letter differently to indicate that new information on the invalidity of the accounts had come up? If you've done that, then yeah, you can treat it like that refuse to investigate sticky. If you just sent them the same letter(basically), then you probably don't have much of a leg to stand on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about in this specific situation?

- In May, I disputed a listing on my EX report as "not mine."

- In June, EX verified the TL with the OC. I immediately wrote to the OC to get information about the account. They did not respond.

- In August, I wrote to the OC again to get information. They did not respond. After the second OC letter was delivered, I disputed with EX again as "not mine."

- In September, EX again verified the TL and the OC failed to mark the account as in dispute. I immediately wrote to the OC again to notify them of their FCRA violation. Again, they did not respond.

- In October, I filed complaints with the FTC, BBB and AG's office.

- In November, I wrote to EX asking for the TL be deleted because the OC refused to respond to my communication, thus I could not get verification of the information.

EX immediately mailed me the letter saying they would not take any action because they had "already investigated this information and the credit grantor has verified its accuracy."

Is ITS next or should I file complaints with the FTC, BBB and AG's office?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OC's aren't required to respond to DV letters or mark accounts in dispute. They've pretty much got immunity from most legal recourse, and use it to their fullest advantage.

Though I would still file against the CRA's for not taking the measures required under the FCRA to PROPERLY verify a tradeline. They never do, it's company policy. Every person on this board could sue them for that, and win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OC's aren't required to ... mark accounts in dispute.

That contradicts what I have seen from others on this board and the actual text of the FCRA.

Aren't OCs covered by 623(a)(3) that says, "If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but I thought that in (Nelson v Chase Manhattan, 2002), under which is provided an individual cause of action for enforcing its provisions. Namely an OC as a "furnisher of information" under FCRA section 623, can be held accountable by us consumers.

Again, I could be wrong, but that is what I've read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for us as the consumers, the FCRA leaves out the words reasonable and procedures, and the OC's have argued(by and large successfully) that this means Congress didn't mean for the OC's to ever impose a duty on the furnisher to defend their investigation or records, and the section was intentionally made non actionable by consumers.

In other words, Congress screwed up, forgot a couple of words, and basically gave OC's immunity from the FCRA

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.