Well, that went well

[direred]

I've been trying to deal with Merrick, my oldest baddie.

Got a nice letter from the exec offices, called the recovery unit, got my balance. Today, it reports to EX for this month (they hadn't been updating in years) and it dropped my EX FICO from 611 to 587.

Grr!

Note that they didn't change the Date of Status, this is just for updated reporting.

[IHateCAs]

They hadn't updated in years?

Had you tried disputing it before calling and sending them letters?

[Ahntara]

"...this is just for updated reporting."

ANY derogatory data within the TL combined with the Date Last Reported hits your score in the History category, which accounts for (up to) 35% of the score. So, getting a derog TL updated, even in response to a dispute, can really tank your score.

[direred]

They hadn't updated in years?

Had you tried disputing it before calling and sending them letters?

Yes, and they never reported it in dispute, either. While that's not actionable under the FCRA, the Rosenthal FDCPA in California does apply to OCs and not noting it in dispute is actionable.

So, after it's confirmed as paid, I'm going to try to get them to remove.

[direred]

"...this is just for updated reporting."

ANY derogatory data within the TL combined with the Date Last Reported hits your score in the History category, which accounts for (up to) 35% of the score. So, getting a derog TL updated, even in response to a dispute, can really tank your score.

I knew that in theory, I just hadn't seen it in action.

[IHateCAs]

I meant dispute through the CRAs. I'm guessing this has been ongoing for a while and they hadn't updated.

I'm asking if they decided to start updating in response to your phonecalls and letters to the exec officers.

I was thinking maybe if you started a CRA dispute first, they might not have responded in time and POOF.

[direred]

I meant dispute through the CRAs. I'm guessing this has been ongoing for a while and they hadn't updated.

Correct, and they hadn't updated the tradeline even in response to CRA disputes.

I'm asking if they decided to start updating in response to your phonecalls and letters to the exec officers.

Correct, because I wanted this resolved. It's now out of SOL (which I was waiting for before I dealt with it if they were unreasonable about fees).

I should add: they added NADA after chargeoff, even though they certainly could have kept adding on interest.

I was thinking maybe if you started a CRA dispute first, they might not have responded in time and POOF.

They have been responding on time for two years, alas. What I never got from them was why the balance owing was correct -- though I now have that.

[wvufan788893]

There is authority which supports that failure to mark a disputed account as being as such is an implied violation of the FCRA. I didn't think it was either until I actually did some research on the topic. I was surprised that the Court actually ruled in this fashion given the fact s2-b makes no express mention of omissions.

Unfortunately, I think all the cases were disposed of in the 3rd so while persuasive, it won't necessarily help us outside that Circuit. I think the seminal case (and I use that term loosely) is DiPrenzo but I don't have the cite before me.

I'll be happy to provide the pertinant part of the holding if anyone would like to view it.

[direred]

There is authority which supports that failure to mark a disputed account as being as such is an implied violation of the FCRA. I didn't think it was either until I actually did some research on the topic. I was surprised that the Court actually ruled in this fashion given the fact s2-b makes no express mention of omissions.

Unfortunately, I think all the cases were disposed of in the 3rd so while persuasive, it won't necessarily help us outside that Circuit. I think the seminal case (and I use that term loosely) is DiPrenzo but I don't have the cite before me.

Well, in California, the Rosenthal FDCPA can certainly be held against OCs, so I could press their feet to the fire for failing to mark the tradeline in dispute. Also, since this account was delinquent (and closed) when Merrick acquired it, I could also argue that they aren't an OC in the usual sense, but rather a CA, and hold them under the Federal statute as well.

Additionally, I think the variations in the tradelines (all confirmed via CRA disputes) mentioned here would also be enough to get a deletion.

[wvufan788893]

Oh, I agree, I just wanted to throw out any misconceptions about the FCRA in the case that someone would misapply it.

[IHateCAs]

I'll be happy to provide the pertinant part of the holding if anyone would like to view it.

Nah, why would we want anything like that?

[wvufan788893]

Okay, okay, here it is below:

DiPrinzio v. MBNA America Bank, N.A., 2005 WL 2039175 (E.D.Pa. 2005) wherein the court held in relevant part: "In an effort to overcome plaintiff's contentions, defendant avers that "incomplete information" is different from "false information." Such an argument, however, turns on a skewed interpretation of truthfulness. Though "technically accurate," a report lacking pertinent information such as disputed debt is "actionable because it is misleading or materially incomplete."

“By omitting the fact that plaintiff disputed her credit bills . . . defendant's report could have misled potential creditors into thinking that plaintiff had failed to repay money that she herself had borrowed. As such, we reject MBNA's "technical accuracy defense" and find that defendant's credit reports may have been so incomplete and misleading as to constitute "false information" under the meaning of section 1681h(e)." See Agosta v. Inovision, Inc., Civ. A. No.02-806, 2003 WL 22999213, at *5 (E.D.Pa. Dec.16, 2003) (citing Koropoulos v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 734 F.2d 37 (D.C.Cir.1984)).

Furthermore, in Cahlin v. GMAC, 936 F.2d 1151 (11th Cir. 1991), the Court provided in pertinent part: "The standard of accuracy for credit reports embodied in FCRA is objective measure that should be interpreted in even-handed manner toward interests of consumers and creditors in fair and accurate reporting. Technical accuracy is not the standard, a consumer report must be accurate to the maximum possible extent. In essence, the trier of fact must weigh potential that information will create a misleading impression against availability of more accurate information and the burden of providing such information." See Alexander v. Moore & Associates, Inc., 553 F.Supp. 948 (U.S.D.C. Hawaii 1982); Cisneros v. U.S. Registry, Inc., 39 C.A.4th 548 (Ca. App. 2d Dist. 1995).

Pretty good stuff, eh?