Jump to content

Verizon not updating credit report after I paid them in full


bmc100
 Share

Recommended Posts

I paid off an old Verizon account, made payment on September 5. Verizon will not update my credit reports to show a $0 balance. I disputed it with the CRAs and it took them less than a week to verify the account as accurate...

Should I wait until Verizon updates my credit report for September to see if they update? If they don't, should I pursue legal action against Verizon and all three CRAs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FCRA is not strict liability. Even if it was, I think a court would give them at least 60days to update. It's my understanding some creditors don't update but every 90 days.

Either way, I'd give them 60 days, but at a bare minimum wait at least one cycle update on the credit report.

With that said, I don't have any case law to back up what I just posted. It's just the way I see how a court would rule.

I heard of a case where AT&T called somebody and the person demanded to be taken off the call list. AT&T called back 10 min later and the consumer sued. AT&T argued they did not have enough time to comply with the request. The court disagreed. Not exactly apples to apples but give it whatever weight you wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FCRA is not strict liability. Even if it was, I think a court would give them at least 60days to update. It's my understanding some creditors don't update but every 90 days.

However, once the account is paid and entered on their computer system, then VZ should NOT confirm a dispute through the CRA as valid. Batching updates to a CRA is common, but in cases of confirming a CRA dispute, they should (if the law does not now require it, then they really should add it) check their own computer to see if the account is paid or if the TL is accurate. If their computer shows one thing, and the TL shows another, but they confirm the TL as accurate, then that is false (they should have known because the computer knows).

Either way, I'd give them 60 days, but at a bare minimum wait at least one cycle update on the credit report.

Seems about right for most corporations that still don't really understand how computers (can) work.

With that said, I don't have any case law to back up what I just posted. It's just the way I see how a court would rule.

Agreed. Courts are probably less informed about how rapidly information can be updated by computer.

A few days ago I made a post on a different forum for a computer technical issue. Then I realized I had not made as thorough a search as I should because I had used a new phrase in the post to describe it which I had not searched on. So I quickly made a search on Google using that new phrase. It came back with a few hits, the first of which was the very post I had just made!

In another anecdote from several years ago, I was making posts on a "forum" called USENET, and was using automated timestamped email addresses as the return address, showing the exact second I made the post. I was doing it with the intention of determining which posts certain spammers were scraping email addresses from (by cross checking spam I get against which post I made). I was quite surprised to find quite a number (nearly 20%) of spam messages came in within 20 minutes of posting. The fastest was 1 minute and 6 seconds!

No doubt computers CAN be programmed to operate very rapidly.

Now I don't expect CR(A) updates to go that fast (although we do have the technology to do it). But DAILY batches from companies that do have multiple TLs per day is not out of reason. Still, companies (and the CRAs themselves) are probably still stuck on doing the old mainframe thing of sending a batch tape to the CRA once a month. If they say that's the way they are doing it, and because it is still a common practice, the court is most likely to accept that. If a payment just missed this month's batch extraction, it would be 30-31 days before it makes the next one. Then there is transmittal/shipping time, and processing time at the CRA to check data consistency, journal all changes, etc.

I heard of a case where AT&T called somebody and the person demanded to be taken off the call list. AT&T called back 10 min later and the consumer sued. AT&T argued they did not have enough time to comply with the request. The court disagreed. Not exactly apples to apples but give it whatever weight you wish.

Per technology, as soon as the operator taking the request to be taken off the list moves on to the next call, it should be done. It shouldn't take them more than a minute to click on "Requests DNC" and then "Submit update". It shouldn't take the computer more than 20 seconds to enter that in the call database and refresh the screen to make them ready for the next call.

Per their procedures, it might well take a month. That would be a case of procedures that should not be in place. But they should be compelled to have procedures in place to not call more often than however long it takes to do the update. The technology to do this (and to make updates by their own staff within seconds) exists, and has existed for a couple decades (e.g. no excuse to not be using it by now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per technology, as soon as the operator taking the request to be taken off the list moves on to the next call, it should be done. It shouldn't take them more than a minute to click on "Requests DNC" and then "Submit update". It shouldn't take the computer more than 20 seconds to enter that in the call database and refresh the screen to make them ready for the next call.

I agree and without reading the opinion, probably your reasoning is similiar to the courts. I've worked a job that you just check a box and refresh the screen and done. The counter argument I've heard is that it still takes 24 hours to register for the number to be removed from the call list.

An argument the courts did not buy either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is Michigan Case Law on C&D where a company received the C&D, then 30 minutes later, they called the consumer back. the courts said in their opinion that that once you received the C&D from that moment, you have to comply with it and the CA tried to argue that it was a mistake and it takes longer than that to update their records. The court would not hear it and fined them for a FDCPA violation.

I think I got it from this blog:

Nitzkin and Associates Debt Collection Attorneys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree and without reading the opinion, probably your reasoning is similiar to the courts. I've worked a job that you just check a box and refresh the screen and done. The counter argument I've heard is that it still takes 24 hours to register for the number to be removed from the call list.

An argument the courts did not buy either.

Likely they are just using antiquated file transfers from a program that extracts numbers from the database and transfers them, maybe via floppies (still), over to another computer that imports the list and makes the calls. They don't want to spend the money to upgrade to new systems that just network all this automatically. They'd rather save money and other people's expense (cost shifting).

Outside of the AR business sector, businesses have to compete, and doing things right may well be a factor in the competition. That's not always the case, but sometimes it is. The restaurant that is always slow to serve meals is at a disadvantage to the one that serves the faster (all else being equal). But for collections, the cost is being shifted to a party that has no choice in which collector is involved, effectively removing any chance of incentive to do better. So I'm all for the courts expecting them to be using the latest technology (disclaimer: I might get more consulting gigs the more they do that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They definitely don't take 60 days to update their reports. I would doubt if it took longer than a week to update an account. I would definitely hammer on them about this.

The fact is that most automatic updates are "computer to computer" and require no manual human intervention. A FCRA dispute requires (by law) human intervention and therefore human judgement. The human should have seen the debt was in fact paid, not just that at some time it was delinquent and should have corrected the TL to show it asa PAID delinquency (if not a DISPUTED one).

That said, had this not been an OC you would have a weak FDCPA action because the collector certainly would have retreated behind the Bona Fide Error defense and the Court would probably allow it. FCRA has no such defense and, while FCRA is not a Strict Liability Statute, a violation is a violation and you gave them ample opportunity to correct it. The OC is now in the unhappy position of arguing in Court one of the following:

1: We didn't change the TL because we don't as a matter of policy (and you reply "thank you for admitting this suit should be a Class Action with the class being all persons who disputed a TL with you in the past 2 years"), or

2: We screwed up, sorry Your Honor, sorry Plaintiff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote a dispute letter for all three CRAs today and I am sending it to Verizon as well tomorrow CMRRR. I am including with the dispute the paid-in-full letter. I told the CRAs to delete the erroneous information off of my credit report. If they do not update my credit

file, then I have a FCRA complaint against all four parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I paid off an old Verizon account, made payment on September 5. Verizon will not update my credit reports to show a $0 balance. I disputed it with the CRAs and it took them less than a week to verify the account as accurate...

Should I wait until Verizon updates my credit report for September to see if they update? If they don't, should I pursue legal action against Verizon and all three CRAs?

You paid it on 9/5. It won't always show up the very next time they report. I paid off one, and it didn't show up until 2 months later. Give it another month. If they don't report it paid when they update in November, then take action.

If you have to take legal action, you want to show the court that you gave Verizon plenty of time and did what you could to avoid taking it to court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Verizon finally updated my credit report to show paid-in-full today. They called me on Thursday, last week to notify me that they submitted payment updates to all three CRAs.

Now...the mortgage is the only thing that is left and it is looking more and more like this is going to get resolved in court.

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.