InFiNiTeX Posted December 8, 2003 Report Share Posted December 8, 2003 What is the next step when the EQ, EX wont reinvestigate, Am I done, It has been 3 months since my last dispute, and they still wont reinvestigate.I did my disputes online Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanathos Posted December 8, 2003 Report Share Posted December 8, 2003 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 More sharing options...
InFiNiTeX Posted December 8, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2003 ITS Letter Being ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanathos Posted December 8, 2003 Report Share Posted December 8, 2003 Intent to Sue. Others may disagree with me on this point, but I don't believe in being nice with these morons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrow Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 InFiNiTeX, its nice to see the guys steppin up with thier pics! 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! ITS letter, here I come! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InFiNiTeX Posted December 9, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 I didnt mean the Collection when i said CA i was referring to Equifax and so, I dont think i have the balls to tell Eq i am going to sue them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanathos Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 It's only a scary prospect the first time you do it...then it gets kind of addictive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tropicaljo Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 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 More sharing options...
tarheel99 Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 I also got a "previously investigated" letter from EX for each of my dispute letters.Should I wait until the 30 days is up before I send them a response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miamijc Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Xan, would you suggest an ITS letter in response to a letter from TU saying that item was previously verified so they consider dispute to be frivolous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrow Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Xan, would you suggest an ITS letter in response to a letter from TU saying that item was previously verified so they consider dispute to be frivolous?http://debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10789 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miamijc Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 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 More sharing options...
Xanathos Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 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 More sharing options...
tarheel99 Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 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 More sharing options...
Xanathos Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 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 More sharing options...
tarheel99 Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 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 More sharing options...
Jazkal Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 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 More sharing options...
Xanathos Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 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 More sharing options...
Jazkal Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 New FCRA under section 623(a)(eight) "ABILITY OF CONSUMER TO DISPUTE INFORMATION DIRECTLY WITH FURNISHER"I don't understand the whole of section 623 yet, but it has been completely overhauled. Hopefully is will make it better for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanathos Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Ohhhhhhhhhh yeah, new FCRA crap...lol I still haven't read that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts