EX refused to investigate??

[MasterP_Nice]

EX just refused to investigate the account A$$et has on me.

In their written letter to me, they said that they have already verified the account, and therefore will not investigate it again.

I decided to call them up and ask them why not. I got the (expected) run around, and the lady said that on Apr. 13, they investigated the account, and it came back verified. I asked what method they used, she said eOSCAR. I asked if they will conduct another investigation, she said no because it would be frivolous.

She said they would reinvestigate the account if I got more info from A$$et. I said I haven't received a response to my request for validation. She said all I can do is go to the BBB/AG.

I went online and submitted a dispute to the account through that way... hopefully if it comes back verified, I'll at least TRY to claim that A$$et has an FDCPA violation.

Question is - can EX refuse to investigate the account if they just did a couple of months ago?? Does this warrant another CMRRR letter to them indicating that there may be changes in the account?

[VonAngel (aka EarthAngel)]

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/legal/FCRA.shtml#611

Read part (a)(3), based on declaring a dispute "frivolous".

So, yes...they can do it. That's why using different dispute reasons & waiting a month b4 disputing again are important. You'll either have to wait a few months & re-dispute or try to wear Asset down by other means (filing complaints w/ your AG & the BBB are great starts). I had 2 accounts w/ Asset: 1 I had to submit a copy of a identity theft report to; and the other I sent a complaint to every entity there was. Eventually, the BBB put the heat to Asset's a$$ to get the TL removed.

[MasterP_Nice]

Hrm... okay. I guess if I use the same code, then they can make that argument.

I used a different dispute reason online, so hopefully that'll go through and I'll nail 'em on a violation.

Off to write BBB/AG letters.... thanks EA!! =)

[Methuss]

I used a different dispute reason online, so hopefully that'll go through and I'll nail 'em on a violation.

ACK! (methuss hacks up a furball)

On-line disputes are a NO NO unless it is for simple stuff like duplicates, addresses, etc. DO NOT use on-line dispute resolution for actual tradeline disputes. You have no ability to provide evidence to support your claim and you have no proof to use in court against the CRA if they fail to do their investigation properly. Screen shots and e-mails are not admissible in court as evidence unless you also subpeona the CRAs records to back it up (good luck getting that kind of leeway from a lower court judge) -- They aren't admissible because they can be easily faked/altered by anyone with a printer and some software.

Not only that, but the CRA can use this prior investigation crap on you unless you provide a new reason or additional evidence that would require them to reinvestigate.

If you are dealing with a CA entry on your reports, the only way to fully protect your rights under the law is to do it by certified mail. For most OC entries, that is also the case.

[MasterP_Nice]

On-line disputes are a NO NO unless it is for simple stuff like duplicates, addresses, etc. DO NOT use on-line dispute resolution for actual tradeline disputes. You have no ability to provide evidence to support your claim and you have no proof to use in court against the CRA if they fail to do their investigation properly. Screen shots and e-mails are not admissible in court as evidence unless you also subpeona the CRAs records to back it up (good luck getting that kind of leeway from a lower court judge) -- They aren't admissible because they can be easily faked/altered by anyone with a printer and some software.

Not only that, but the CRA can use this prior investigation crap on you unless you provide a new reason or additional evidence that would require them to reinvestigate.

If you are dealing with a CA entry on your reports, the only way to fully protect your rights under the law is to do it by certified mail. For most OC entries, that is also the case.

The CRA is required to send me the results of the investigation, correct? If they do send me results in the mail, and in their letter it states that A$$st verified the accuracy of the account, isn't that adequate proof that they are verifying an account to the CRA when they haven't validated the account to me?