Jump to content

Cap1 Changed Account History

Recommended Posts

Okay, I got my Experian report back in November of 2005 and I wanted to double check some things on my report tonight. Here's what the Account history was at that time, which is accurate to the best of my knowledge:

180 days as of May2002

150 days as of Apr 2002

120 days as of Mar 2002

90 days as of Feb 2002

60 days as of Jan 2002

30 days as of Dec 2001

Here is what it says as of Aug 10th, 2006:

150 days as of Apr 2006

120 days as of Mar 2006

90 days as of Feb 2006

60 days as of Jan 2006

30 days as of Dec 2005

Here's my biggest concern. At the top of the report today it says this:

Status Details:

This account is scheduled to continue on record until Aug 2012.

This item was verified and updated on Jun 2006.

Should I be concerned about the newly posted "Status Details" at all or should my main concern be the fact that they seemingly completely changed my account history in order to re-age the account?

Is this legal? What would you guys recommend to do at this time?

On a side note: I'm assuming this debt can no longer be collected according to Wasghington state's SOL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they verify with the CRA, then you have a 623(B) violation. I am assuming that Cap1 is reporting this, and not a CA.

When the results of the dispute come in, write Cap1 a letter, CMRRR and tell them that they are reporting incorrectly. When the green card comes back, call or mail the CRA and dispute again. When they verify again, you have them on willfull noncompliance. You are now free to sue for big $$$.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain how 623(B) relates to willful noncompliance. It seems that 623(B) covers duty to investigate. What if they claim it's correct? Would that not fulfill the obligation under 623(a)?

It seems that if you prove a mistake and they fail to correct report, that would be a 623(a) violation, not necessarily a 623(B). Herein lies the problem I have with FCRA because most violations (in my case) wind up being 623(a) and action against the furnisher in a 623(a) violation is reserved for Federal and State agencies according to 623(d).

Am I missing something in the interpretation of 623(B)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(B) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute.

(1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall

(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;

(B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i];

© report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency;

(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis

If, after being told that they are incorrectly reporting, they STILL verify the tradeline as complete and accurate when it is not complete and accurate, then how did they investigate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, to prove a 623(B) violation, you would need to prove that they failed to investigate.

I have seen a case where the court defined investigation in this instance, but I can't remember the cite. I think the opinion said something to the effect that if obvious errors were overlooked, the standard of "investigation" was not met.

That's not one I'd like to take into small claims for sure, but I see the connection you're making. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dive is dead on, do as suggested. Dispute with the CRA, COne will verify because they are dicks. This will establish your private right of action (but lets do better). Then write to COne directly, informing them directly of the error and giving them a chance to correct it (mail, CMRRR). Then Re-dispute after the green card is returned as proof they recieved your complaint. Now if they verify, it is not just a "oops, mistake" it is WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE and a nice fat $1K per CRA per month since they re-aged.

The penalty under WILLFUL non complinace is strong and includes the option for the ocurt to impose PUNATIVE damages as well.

There is having a case and then there is establishing a CASE. Get the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I just got an emailed response from Experian with the verification from Capital One. They changed how they're reporting it & are now reporting accurately - it matches the original report.

I'm sure this is unusual but I'm glad they fixed the history without me having to go through a bunch of paperwork & headache. I am curious however...can I still get them on a violation especially since they changed it back ( essentially admitting they reported incorrectly )?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bummer, would have been nice if they stuck to the reaging.... nice payday for you.

Yes, if the dates change AGAIN, you have already established yoour private right of action with the disputes, and they sealed the case for you with the removal back to correct dates. If the dates get reaged again, do not dispute... SUE on the spot. usually fill out a Federal FCRA complaint, and send an ITS letter to COne's general counsel. This will usually result in a $1-2K check and permanent deletion of the tradeline as settlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.