FACTA Question

[Silver]

I was just checking out the following info pertaining to FACTA and need some help interpreting this:

Duty to Furnish Accurate Information. §312

This provision states that the FTC shall study and provide regulations on the standards that a furnisher of information to a consumer reporting agency must follow to ensure accuracy. This will be a developing area. In subsection ©, a consumer may now dispute information directly with the furnisher of the information rather than going to the consumer reporting agency. In disputing information, the consumer must supply three things to the furnisher:

(a) identification of the item disputed;

( the consumer must explain the basis of the dispute; and

© the consumer must provide all supporting information requested by the furnisher to substantiate the dispute.

A furnisher of information need not investigate a dispute that has been previously reinvestigated by the consumer reporting agency to which the information was reported, and that the furnisher has previously verified that information during that reinvestigation. This will prevent harassment by a difficult consumer after being unhappy with their reinvestigation at the agency who then takes the dispute to the furnisher. Some education of furnishers will be needed to advise them of their duties. Again, this will be an ongoing process for the next year. Once this has settled out, these duties will be advisable to be included as part of the contract of service.

Does this mean that if you send a dispute to a CRA and the OC verifies it to them, then if you send a dispute directly to the OC, they don't have to investigate it becuse they already "investigated" it when they verified it to the CRAs? If I am reading this right, this doesnt seem good. We all know how slack the CRA can be in investigating (as well as the OC). And I don't really consider it harassment to ask the OC to back up their claim with proof.

Can anyone tell me if this is correct or not?

[crod]

You got it! It is saying that if dispute to the CRA and they verify the info with the creditor, the creditor does not have to re-investigate the info. This is why you first step in credit repair should be the deletion of inaccurate personal info. When the CRA investigates, they only verify the account by name and address. (if you are disputing that you have no knowledge of this account or not mine.)

[Methuss]

Refusal to reinvestigate by the furnisher does not insulate them for being sued for inaccurate reporting. As a matter of fact, if a furnisher refuses to reinvestigate after being contacted by a consumer and the consumer can show the information is wrong, then the furnisher would be guilty of willful non-compliance and subject to the maximum penalty under the law.

It would be foolish for a furnisher to fall back onto that technicality when confronted by evidence from a consumer.

[Silver]

But what if they have no proof other than you don't recoginize the account? To me it seems this is making the OCs LESS accountable. Also, does "furnisher of information" apply only to OCs? Or does this mean the CAs don't have to validate if youve already gone through the CRA (and it was verified)?

Other questions:

To get around this could you dispute with the OC first (and then they'd have to come up with statements or a contract or something showing proof), and skip the CRA? Then they'd have to investigate.

[gdouglaslee]

When you get a frivolous or a refusal to reinvestigate, it's incumbent upon you to provide detailed specific information as to why the account is reporting incorrectly, if you hadn't already.

Unde the FCRA, the info you provide is to be forwarded to the furnisher.

[susanp]

I am still confused.... I just disputed with the CRA's using the" I do not recognize the account" should I have done something differently?