Jump to content

CRA Dispute, then reinsertion ??


Corvetteman
 Share

Recommended Posts

My friend had a collection on his CR.  The collection was 13 months old.

 

He contacted the CRA and disputed as not his.  He got a letter from the CRA after 38 days and they deleted the collection.

 

Three weeks after they deleted the collection the CRA notified him that the collection had been reinserted.  The collection had been inserted on 6/12/13 and they notified him on /6/15/13.

 

He contacted the CRA and asked why it had been reinserted ?  The CRA said after they deleted the collection then they received verfication from the OC.

 

He asked the CRA when did they receive verification from the OC ?   They claim they received verification from the OC on 6/11/13.

 

This is 2 months after the original dispute with the CRA !!

 

I know the 5 day rule about reinsertion.  The CRA did there job by contacting him within 5 days.

 

Can an OC take 2 months to verify and have the collection put back on ?

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1681s-2(b)(2):

 

(2) Deadline
A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 1681i (a)(1) of this title within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information.

 

1681(a)(1) gives a time limit of 30 days.  However, the above deadline says that's when a person (the OC) shall complete their investigation.  It doesn't say that the CRA has to reinsert the TL right after they've deleted it. 

 

If the CRA does verify the item, even after 30 days have passed, it can (and generally will) restore the item to the credit report. Fed'l Trade Comm'n v. Gill, 265 F.3d 944, 9952 (9th Cir.2001).

 

 

 

 

If the CRA does verify the item, even after 30 days have passed, it can (and generally will) restore the item to the credit report. Fed'l Trade Comm'n v. Gill, 265 F.3d 944, 9952 (9th Cir.2001).

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.