Do I have 3 violations against HSBC?

[DellMatic]

ok guys, I was having this conversation with Angel about this account, that I had sent them DV papers for them to respond to me, now this is an OC that it's reporting on my EQ CR I waited for the response from EQ, which came back verified, then I sent them a DV letter, and I have received this letter 3 times from them, now if you notice that this letter sounds like they are responding to EQ request, in no way shape or form this mention about my letters that I have sent them, am I clear in explaining this??

[Recovering Attorney]

How did they violate the law? It was your CC, it was Co'd and sold and you paid the next guy, right? It should show as sold with a 0 balance.

[DellMatic]

How did they violate the law? It was your CC, it was Co'd and sold and you paid the next guy, right? It should show as sold with a 0 balance.

it is my account, and yes I paid the next guys, shows as 0 balance yes, but according to the FCRA or FCDPA have to look into it, that a OC has to respond within the 30 days like a regular CRA or it's a violation?

[Recovering Attorney]

But what is the violation? 30 days? Wishful thinking

[DellMatic]

But what is the violation? 30 days? Wishful thinking

yeah, for not responding within 30 days, according to FCRA 623(

they did respond to the CRA within 30 days but not me

[divemedic]

Section 623 is called:

623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies.

There is no requirement that a furnisher respond to your investigation request under 623 that is enforceable through private action. They are only required to respond to the CRA.

[mikey]

How did they violate the law? It was your CC, it was Co'd and sold and you paid the next guy, right? It should show as sold with a 0 balance.

i agree with you but watch it RA....dive might say u have a bad attitude with a post like this.....lol

[DellMatic]

Section 623 is called:

623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies

dive, I have sent 3 letters and those letters I have received from them it's addressing like a response from the CRA, does that mean that I have those violations?

[lyle7289]

dive, I have sent 3 letters and those letters I have received from them it's addressing like a response from the CRA, does that mean that I have those violations?

No Dell, there are no violations to any statute that the OC has made. They replied to the CRA within the alooted time and they also replied to you. There is no private action here.

Be careful Mikey.....I know where you are going and it's the wrong road. tread lightly my friend, tread lightly

Best Regards,

Lyle

[VonAngel (aka EarthAngel)]

When a consumer disputes directly w/ the data furnisher, they too (like a CRA) must respond to a dispute w/in a 30-day period:

§ 623(8) ABILITY OF CONSUMER TO DISPUTE INFORMATION DIRECTLY WITH FURNISHER--

E) DUTY OF PERSON AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE OF DISPUTE- After receiving a notice of dispute from a consumer pursuant to subparagraph (D), the person that provided the information in dispute to a consumer reporting agency shall--

(iii) complete such person's investigation of the dispute and report the results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) within which a consumer reporting agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had elected to dispute the information under that section

dive, I have sent 3 letters and those letters I have received from them it's addressing like a response from the CRA, does that mean that I have those violations?

Dell, who or what the OC addresses in the letter isn't a violation. As for the content of the letter, if they investigated your dispute (which they did), then it's not a violation either.

You know...there's nothing wrong w/ wanting to clean up your credit. Nothing @ all. But to me, you're spending too much time looking for violations that aren't there just b/c you want this TL gone. Per our conversation, you revealed that you've gone from 14 (?) COs/negatives to just (3). You've done an amazing job thus far!! IMO, you should spend your $ on reBUILDING your credit. Removing negatives is NOT the only thing to make you appear to have 'good' credit. Actually, your credit could appear to be 'poor' if you haven't spent your time building history. In due time, those TLs (like OB's) will fall and be ancient history. Now...this is your credit; you can decide how you would rather spend your time. Personally, I think that you should let OB have their short victory and spend your time fighting creditors who have continuously violated you.

[LNY]

i agree with you but watch it RA....dive might say u have a bad attitude with a post like this.....lol

Mikey, knock it off. You're really pushing it now.

[DellMatic]

When a consumer disputes directly w/ the data furnisher, they too (like a CRA) must respond to a dispute w/in a 30-day period:

Dell, who or what the OC addresses in the letter isn't a violation. As for the content of the letter, if they investigated your dispute (which they did), then it's not a violation either.

You know...there's nothing wrong w/ wanting to clean up your credit. Nothing @ all. But to me, you're spending too much time looking for violations that aren't there just b/c you want this TL gone. Per our conversation, you revealed that you've gone from 14 (?) COs/negatives to just (3). You've done an amazing job thus far!! IMO, you should spend your $ on reBUILDING your credit. Removing negatives is NOT the only thing to make you appear to have 'good' credit. Actually, your credit could appear to be 'poor' if you haven't spent your time building history. In due time, those TLs (like OB's) will fall and be ancient history. Now...this is your credit; you can decide how you would rather spend your time. Personally, I think that you should let OB have their short victory and spend your time fighting creditors who have continuously violated you.

thanks Angel, that it's correct from 14 to only 3, and like I said in a post a couple of weeks ago, I AM OBSSESED with cleaning this up, not having not even 1 baddie, uhhhhhhhhhh I know Angel, but I don't want no hardpull on my credit, as a matter of fact I want to buy my moms a refrigerator from sears, wish I could start there, getting a line of credit from them

but I guess I just have one violation that they did not responde, so I will try to see if I can scare them with a letter that it's been forwared to BBB, AG, FTC, and then I will send an ITS, then sue, what you think? I mean it's 2 years to come off

[divemedic]

The problem here is that they must respond to your investigation, but since the requirement is 623(a)(8), you still cannot sue them for the violation:

© LIMITATION ON LIABILITY- Except as provided in section 621©(1)(, sections 616 and 617 do not apply to any violation of--

(1) subsection (a) of this section, including any regulations issued thereunder;

[DellMatic]

The problem here is that they must respond to your investigation, but since the requirement is 623(a)(8), you still cannot sue them for the violation:

© LIMITATION ON LIABILITY- Except as provided in section 621©(1)(, sections 616 and 617 do not apply to any violation of--

(1) subsection (a) of this section, including any regulations issued thereunder;

so basically I should just send them a tactic letter, to try to scare them off, they might ignore it because they know I can't do anything or maybe they will drop it?