Jump to content

CR refuses to investigate


shortyg
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have a charge off (DOLA 4/2003) on two CRs (Experian and Equifax). After not disputing this TL for over a year, I decided to try again. I disputed the "amount overdue" this time (I disputed "account not mine" before). Experian sent me this response "...We have already investigated this information and the credit grantor has verified its accuracy..."

Can they do this, especially after the time between disputes? Any suggestions on how to continue and get this off my reports?

Thanks for the help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically no. They cannot do that because you are claiming a different reason. In practice, yes, if you did not provide any evidence or additional details to back up the claim. Under such circumstances they will rely solely on the furnisher's data.

I must point out that there is case law that says the CRAs cannot do this. In multiple cases that have gone to trial, all three CRAs have repeatedly been told by judges that they cannot simply "parrot" what the furnishers say but must actually dig into it and verify the accuracy themselves. The CRAs have discovered over the years, that simply disobeying the law and paying hte occasional settlement is actually cheaper than hiring a bunch of investigators to really check into consumer claims....and so the cycle continues....

...and will continue this way until Congress ups the damages awarded to consumers and makes it more expensive for the CRAs to defy the law than to follow it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest FloridaDebtor
Quick question; have you also disputed w/ the furnisher directly? I.E. The collection agency and/or original creditor?

If I may ask, what is the info you dispute and why?

Elyse

ask the CRA for a MOV.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its been my experience that the MOVs provided by the CRAs are worthless...especially EX. I have only received generic form letter responses stating essentially nothing.

My concerns about becoming too challenging with the CRAs are becoming flagged in some way and subjecting myself to reprisals. I am certainly not suggesting that they are not to be held accountable to applicable laws, but you really need to pick and choose your battles carefully.

JMO...

Ray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its been my experience that the MOVs provided by the CRAs are worthless...especially EX. I have only received generic form letter responses stating essentially nothing.

My concerns about becoming too challenging with the CRAs are becoming flagged in some way and subjecting myself to reprisals. I am certainly not suggesting that they are not to be held accountable to applicable laws, but you really need to pick and choose your battles carefully.

JMO...

Ray

I agree, I have asked for MOV and also got nothing but a standard junk letter stating absolutely nothing. Although MOV should help us in reality it does nothing in my experience.

I am curious if anyone on this board has had any luck using this method???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I have asked for MOV and also got nothing but a standard junk letter stating absolutely nothing. Although MOV should help us in reality it does nothing in my experience.

I am curious if anyone on this board has had any luck using this method???

We had a former member here that sued the big-3 and got a rather large settlement. He based his entire suit on the fact that the CRAs failed to properly investigate his IDTheft claims and properly describe their methods per the FCRA.

He even posted a scanned copy of EX's internal "investigation" queries sent to the furnisher with a description of what information the furnisher had to provide in response. It was scary to see that all that was needed to "verify" a tradeline was three out of four of the following being "close enough:" name, address, former address, and SSN. The SSN didn't even have to match for EX to consider it verified, just close enough!

It took him quite a while to stomp them and he was a pre-law student. So it is possible if not simple.

To Raysway, this same person mentioned above did end up in "special handling" from that point on. Any complaint made from that point on went through a scrupulously detailed process and never with a 1st level agent. That was the CRAs way of meting out repriasals: Everything was questioned in detail. If you have real problems getting things corrected, you probably wouldn't mind this, but if you're trying to remove legitimate baddies from your reports, this would be a real problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Methuss:

Agreed and understood.

Fortunately, I didn't have any outrageous balances that I was unable to satisfy, but I don't want these items on my report for the standard length of time...haunting me. So, admittedly, I do often try to remove legitimate items from my report after I have satisfied them. So I don't want any "special handling." (Thank you sir, but no! :)) That's just what has worked out best for me, anyway.

EX has a wierd variation of my SS# as well. The digits are all off by one due to them beginning the # with a zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.