Jump to content

Not noting the dipute


Jess1120
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've disputed an account three times over the past four months. After the first two disputes, they updated but did not provide notice of the dispute as required by the FCRA. After the third and final dispute, they finally added the dispute notice.

My question:

I already have a lawsuit going with them and the notice of dispute didn't appear until after they were served. Can I still get them on violating the FCRA for NOT adding the dispute notice the first two times?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already have a lawsuit going with them and the notice of dispute didn't appear until after they were served. Can I still get them on violating the FCRA for NOT adding the dispute notice the first two times?

If you read carefully, you'll note there's no private right of action for s-2a.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wouldn't invoke 1681s-2a. The cause would fall under s-2b which does afford a private remedy.

I've posted the authority on here before which prescribes that failure to mark an account in dispute is an FCRA violation by a furnisher of information. Without doing so again, I recall the case being styled DiPrenzo v. MBNA (I think, it may not have been MBNA).

I can pull it again if anyone wants it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the origin of my case was to sue them for re-aging the account. We're supposed to be in court tomorrow morning and I'm still attempting to settle with them first (no money..just a deletion). I just want to have as much on them as possible, to better pursuade them that it would not be worth their time, money and effort to show up in court to fight it. After all, I don't owe them any money.. it's a paid CO. They have nothing to lose by just deleting it. They could stand to lose a lot more if they fight.

I've been under the impression that you can sue for not noting the dispute.. i just wasn't sure if it would hold up since they have it on there now.

wvufan.. it'd be great if you could post that on here again since I didn't get to see it the first time :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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)." DiPrinzio v. MBNA America Bank, N.A., 2005 WL 2039175 (E.D.Pa. 2005) 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)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting that!

Question though (since I'm a bit confused as usual ;) )

In case I have a judge who is not too familiar with the FCRA laws, and if he tells me leaving out a dispute notice is not actionable by a private citizen under 1681s-2a... how do I explain that it IS actionable under 2b?

(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; and

(E) if an item of information disputed by a consumer is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1), for purposes of reporting to a consumer reporting agency only, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation promptly--

(i) modify that item of information;

(ii) delete that item of information; or

(iii) permanently block the reporting of that item of information.

So... if they are saying they are providing accurate information, how do I prove a violation under 2b? Do I say that by not placing notice of the dispute means that they did not perform a proper investigation?

Sorry if this if confusing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got it.. thanks!

One more question...

I have at least 8 copies of reports from all three CRAs, spanning a 9 week period, and not one of them lists the account in dispute (even though I've disputed with the CRAs and directly with Verizon at least twice since September)

The only place the dispute is noted is on one of my EQ score watch alerts, but as soon as they verified the account, they removed the dispute notice.

So, is there a certain amount of time the disputed status has to remain on the account? After verifying, can they legally take it off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know they are going to show up tomorrow and say that they informed the CRAs of the disputed status, (since he tols me this on the phone) and the CRAs just didn't add it to the account TL... how do I prove it's still in their blamefield, and not the fault of the CRA?

I would seem to me that at least one of the CRAs at one point during the two disputes would have complied (afterall, I have other disputes that ARE noted on the accounts)

How can you tell if the dispute is there because the CRA, like EQ placed it there for reinvestigation, or because the furnisher complied with the FCRA and placed it there?

Sorry so many questions.. I just don't want to look ridiculous in court tomorrow and the FCRA is not specific on these little details!

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.