Jump to content

Am I understanding FCRA 623 correctly?


Recommended Posts

I disputed 5 items with the Credit Bureaus. All five came back as "verified".

I sent each of the four companies a Letter citing FCRA 623 and that I wanted an Investigation into the detailed items from the CRA dispute and listed the detailed items in question. I have received no response to any of the five 623 Investigation requests.  All responses came due today, I know that if mailed Yesterday I wouldn't have them and they would be valid.

 

Friday I called one of the companies and they stated that no response was being sent and that they would not do as I requested and remove the item from my credit as it has "been sold to a debt collector", that I should be contacting said collector, and they had no information. I have this conversation recorded.

 

If I understand the process correctly a response is Required. This response can be the results of an investigation, that the request is frivolous, or a request for information followed by one of the two prior responses.

 

Since I have disputed first with the CRAs, I have retained a private right of action and not responding is a Violation. @BV80 in post http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/318230-oc-sent-my-623-letter-to-jdb-instead-of-responding/ stated that no response was necessary to the original posters request if the dispute is the same as the dispute sent to the CRA, but it looks like that even if they are the same that would only trigger the "Frivolous" response.

 

Have I correctly followed the rules? Dispute CRA, wait for response, 623 Furnisher, wait for response.

I had thought to call all of the companies and see if any of them had bothered to respond and if they hadn't, offer a deletion in exchange for not pursuing the violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disputed 5 items with the Credit Bureaus. All five came back as "verified".

I sent each of the four companies a Letter citing FCRA 623 and that I wanted an Investigation into the detailed items from the CRA dispute and listed the detailed items in question. I have received no response to any of the five 623 Investigation requests.  All responses came due today, I know that if mailed Yesterday I wouldn't have them and they would be valid.

 

Nope.  The FCRA only states that the CRAs have to RESPOND within 30 days NOT that you have to RECEIVE it within 30 says.  When you dispute directly with the actual creditor there is NO time frame to respond to your request for an investigation at all.  They only need to report the results within 30 days if you disputed under section 611(a).  

 

E) Duty of person after receiving notice of dispute. After receiving a notice of dispute from a consumer pursuant to subparagraph (D), the person that provided the information in dispute to a consumer reporting agency shall-

(i) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;

(ii) review all relevant information provided by the consumer with the notice;

(iii) complete such person's investigation of the dispute and report the results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) within which a consumer reporting agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had elected to dispute the information under that section; and

(iv) if the investigation finds that the information reported was inaccurate, promptly notify each consumer reporting agency to which the person furnished the inaccurate information of that determination and provide to the agency any correction to that information that is necessary to make the information provided by the person accurate.

 

Friday I called one of the companies and they stated that no response was being sent and that they would not do as I requested and remove the item from my credit as it has "been sold to a debt collector", that I should be contacting said collector, and they had no information. I have this conversation recorded.

 

If the account has been sold to someone else they are not required to investigate it as they are no longer the owner.  Their answer is correct and they do not have to remove the entry

 

If I understand the process correctly a response is Required. This response can be the results of an investigation, that the request is frivolous, or a request for information followed by one of the two prior responses.

 

.If they no longer own the account they do not have to respond.  They CAN but are not required to.  As long as the entry has a zero balance and states it is closed and sold to another lender it is reporting accurately and they don't have to remove it.

 

Have I correctly followed the rules? Dispute CRA, wait for response, 623 Furnisher, wait for response.

I had thought to call all of the companies and see if any of them had bothered to respond and if they hadn't, offer a deletion in exchange for not pursuing the violation.

 

As far as I can tell on at least one you have not followed all the rules.  So far I don't see a violation.  Keep in mind tomorrow is a federal holiday so there will be no mail on Monday either.  No court is going to award you any money for a violation because they take a day or two longer or you don't receive it at exactly day 30.  

 

You might have more luck if you posted what you are disputing and why so that those with experience can help you.  Often people read how to dispute, apply their own logic, then make a bunch of mistakes.

 

Keep in mind that the ONLY requirement is that they report correctly.  If the trade line is indeed inaccurate all they are required to do is clean it up not delete it.  So you still may not get the results you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope.  The FCRA only states that the CRAs have to RESPOND within 30 days NOT that you have to RECEIVE it within 30 says.  When you dispute directly with the actual creditor there is NO time frame to respond to your request for an investigation at all.  They only need to report the results within 30 days if you disputed under section 611(a).  

Yes, I realize that is why I said that I know that if they are in the mail they are still valid. The postmark will still have to be at the latest due on Saturday.

 

 

If the account has been sold to someone else they are not required to investigate it as they are no longer the owner.  Their answer is correct and they do not have to remove the entry

 

 

.If they no longer own the account they do not have to respond.  They CAN but are not required to.  As long as the entry has a zero balance and states it is closed and sold to another lender it is reporting accurately and they don't have to remove it.

Sold or not the they are Still a Data Furnisher. The accuracy of their trade lines must still be maintained. I have disputed them as incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sold or not the they are Still a Data Furnisher. The accuracy of their trade lines must still be maintained. I have disputed them as incorrect.

 

You are missing the point.  What exactly do you think isn't correct?  You would be amazed at the number of people who believe legitimately that a trade line is not correct and once they post the details find out it is indeed accurate.

 

If you could post one or two accounts as examples it would help immensely to guide you.  For example:

 

Humpty Dumpty Credit Card

Opened:  11/2007

Date of last payment:  12/2010

Status:  Charged off; sold to another lender

Balance:  $0

 

Then state what you think the error in reporting is and WHY you think it should either be corrected or deleted.  Without knowing SOME information about what you are disputing all anyone can do is really guess what is happening and why it is or is not working for you.

 

Yes, I realize that is why I said that I know that if they are in the mail they are still valid. The postmark will still have to be at the latest due on Saturday.

 

Even if it isn't post marked by Saturday it may not be a violation.  There are provisions in the act that do allow them to take another 15 days.  

 

Say it is post marked Tuesday's date.  Do you REALLY see a Federal Judge awarding you damages because they mailed it a day or two late?  I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking your example there. If a dispute was sent that Date of last payment is incorrect. Company checks and finds they have no records concerning the date of last payment.

 

How can the company "verify" that the date of last payment is correct with no records concerning the date of last payment?

 

Is this by chance an HSBC account that was sold to Cap1?  If so your 623 will NOT work.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is not an HSBC account. I have no knowledge of the account in question. Which would be why I disputed it. 

 

I have disputed the items. I followed the rules

 

(iii) complete such person's investigation of the dispute and report the results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) within which a consumer reporting agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had elected to dispute the information under that section; and

From your post above. Section 611(a)(1) has the 30 day limit.

 

They cannot prove something is accurate without records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is not an HSBC account. I have no knowledge of the account in question. Which would be why I disputed it. 

 

I have disputed the items. I followed the rules

From your post above. Section 611(a)(1) has the 30 day limit.

 

They cannot prove something is accurate without records.

 

I give up.  Someone else want to try?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give up.  Someone else want to try?

@Clydesmom  I am sorry that I must be somewhat evasive.  I do not wish to disclose the exactness of the items in question as they are ongoing and identifiable. Four of the five items relate to each other.  Two OC and then both are held by a JDB.  Both the OCs and the JDB appear as trade lines.  They are all three considered Data Furnishers as far as the FCRA is concerned.

 

After reading the FTC document available here http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CFYQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.business.ftc.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpdf%2Fbus33-consumer-reports-what-information-furnishers-need-know_0.pdf&ei=jH3cUujSJtHMsQTw_IKQDg&usg=AFQjCNEFlxXxb1z77bXksf3CBfFjFPJKQg&sig2=IY3j9zvYqJkGmf_oJrBrUg

 

It looks to me that after receiving a dispute. One of two things must happen. Either an investigation into the disputed items or a determination that the dispute is Frivolous. At the end of both selections a report must be sent to me. That document claims the Frivolous selection must happen within 5 days of receiving the letter, but I've seen it stated elsewhere that this actually means that a notice must be sent within 5 day of deciding the dispute is Frivolous. So I'm conflicted on that point.

 

My question hinges on the point of No records.  If a company has No records. Then how can they conduct an investigation and determine that the items disputed are reported correctly.  This is in reference to the CRA dispute not the 623 sent to the Data Furnishers.

 

As a thought experiment. Say I to have enough information to put a trade line in on you. Claiming you owe me $20k.  It pops up on your credit history and you want to find out what this is.  You send a dispute to the CRA who contacts me. I tell them "oh ya she owes me that" and they report back to you that the debt is verified.  You send a 623 request to me, which I ignore.  Should I not have some records to backup my statements that You Owe Me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can post how it is reporting without using the actual names of the entities involved:

 

Creditor 1:

Opened:  11/2007

Date of last payment:  12/2010

Status:  Charged off; sold to JDB 1

Balance:  $0

 

JDB 1

Opened:

DOLP:

Amount:

Status:  in collections, placed with attorney

Balance:

 

Without seeing HOW they are reporting it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell you if your disputes are within the rules or if you have misinterpreted what you read and are expecting too much.  


The standard for validation for reporting is SO low you can trip over it.  They are NOT required to provide you with ANY records as part of validation so if you demanded that you are out of luck.  They are not required to meet the same standard as in a court of law.  If the OC maintains an online data base of accounts and transferred ALL hard copies to the JDB they sold the account to THAT is how they can report. The don't have to have the records physically to report they sold the account off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mantis Knight

 

I've changed my opinion since that 2012 post.  They do have respond with a notice of determination even if they determine that the dispute is irrelevant or frivolous.  However, disputing disputing directly with a furnisher is under 1681s-2(a), and there is no private right of action under that section.

 

Regarding an OC not having any records, that's not necessarily the case.  Just because an OC sells an account doesn't mean they don't still have some records.  The reason is because for a period of time after the sale, the JDB has the right to purchase some of those records.  Therefore, the OC has to have records available.

 

Also, if you claim that a detail is inaccurate, the burden of proof is on you.  For instance, if you claim a balance is incorrect and that the furnisher didn't conduct a reasonable investigation, you must be able to prove the balance is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Clydesmom

 

Nope.  The FCRA only states that the CRAs have to RESPOND within 30 days NOT that you have to RECEIVE it within 30 says.  When you dispute directly with the actual creditor there is NO time frame to respond to your request for an investigation at all.  They only need to report the results within 30 days if you disputed under section 611(a).

 

 

If you dispute directly with the creditor, they still have to respond within the same period of time as when you dispute with the CRAs.

 

(iii) complete such person's investigation of the dispute and report the results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) within which a consumer reporting agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had elected to dispute the information under that section;

 

 

If the account has been sold to someone else they are not required to investigate it as they are no longer the owner.  Their answer is correct and they do not have to remove the entry

 

 

The FCRA does not differentiate between a former and current owner of an account.  The former owner still has to guarantee the accuracy of information it once provided. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BV80

Then where are the teeth?  I admit I thought, after reading other posts and sites, that I created a Private right of action by first disputing with the CRA. After finding a couple of cases I'm starting to see this may only be in reference to marking the trade line as disputed.

 

If I have no knowledge of an account and dispute it with a CRA. The data Furnisher verifies the information is correct and CRA won't remove.  I Dispute with the Data Furnisher and they are just allowed to ignore the dispute, because they know that the State and the FTC is not going to file suit over a single consumer.

 

I can't prove the existence of something I say doesn't exist, but they can prove the existence just by stating it is correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FCRA does not differentiate between a former and current owner of an account.  The former owner still has to guarantee the accuracy of information it once provided. 

 

I am not saying they don't have to guarantee the accuracy of the account.  I am saying if they have SOLD the account and are no longer the owner they are not required to do an in depth investigation once it is sold.  

 

The problem here is we have bits and pieces of what is happening and no real meat by which to answer the questions the OP is asking.  I fear he made a lot of assumptions and if we knew what and how it was reporting could answer accurately regarding his disputes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mantis Knight

 

Yes, you created a private right of action by first disputing with the CRAs.  That would normally apply to information that you know is incorrect but that the furnisher refuses to correct.

 

But, if you know for a fact that you never had that account, then you could very well have a viable claim.   But you have to know that it's not your account.  If you sue, and then find out that it is your account, you could be stuck with their court costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying they don't have to guarantee the accuracy of the account.  I am saying if they have SOLD the account and are no longer the owner they are not required to do an in depth investigation once it is sold.  

 

The problem here is we have bits and pieces of what is happening and no real meat by which to answer the questions the OP is asking.  I fear he made a lot of assumptions and if we knew what and how it was reporting could answer accurately regarding his disputes.  

There are no missing bits or at least I'm not seeing what you believe is missing.  An OC and a JDB have a tradeline. I disputed both with the CRAs.  When they came back as "verified" I sent a 623 request to both in response to them "verifying" information.  The information was NOT my name, address, etc. as those are not disputable items.

 

At this point lets move away from me specifically Clydesmom.  How can anyone be allowed to put information on a credit report if they have no information to backup their claims?

I gave you an example for one. Date of First delinquency, High credit limit, Date of last purchase to name a few.  The OC has NO records and therefore cannot have Verified any of those items. It isn't possible. My understanding was that if you cannot backup the accuracy of the data then you cannot report it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mantis Knight

 

How can anyone be allowed to put information on a credit report if they have no information to backup their claims?

 

 

The OC is not currently reporting.  They stopped reporting when they sold the account.  It's just that the entry remains.

 

Regarding information to verify a past entry, I honestly don't know what to tell you.  To be honest, we don't know what records they may have.  Unless the representative that you spoke to is involved in verifying accounts, you don't know that what he/she told you is accurate.

 

Also, I can tell you right now what the furnisher's argument would be if you sued.  They'll say that you never disputed the entry when they were actively reporting.  Therefore, the information must be correct.  (Just playing the devil's advocate).

 

You say that you have no knowledge of the account.  Have you received any collection notices from the JDB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two accounts are dated in the 2008 area, with JDBs getting them in the 2011-2012 area. I first learned of them from pulling my Credit report in 2013.  I've contacted the JDB who is only interested in being paid, but at this point has no legal ability to enforce collection. I am certain of the SOL and that there is no way to force this matter at this point.

 

@BV80

By "verifying" when the CRA requests information they seem to be reporting.  The report back from the CRA states the results are "additional information has been provided from the original source regarding this item".

 

The question is. I asked for an investigation with my letter citing § 623. (a)(8. A response is required under section (iii) complete such person's investigation of the dispute and report the results of the investigation to the consumer before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) within which a consumer reporting agency would be required to complete its action if the consumer had elected to dispute the information under that section;

 

Assuming that they ignored the request and a letter is not in the mail. Are you saying it means nothing and there is no recourse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mantis Knight

 

By "verifying" when the CRA requests information they seem to be reporting.

 

 

Let's put it this way:  They're not updating.   Just because the entry is on your CR doesn't mean the furnisher is still updating the entry.

 

Since they no longer own the account and don't update the entry, they don't check it anymore.   That's what I mean when I say that they are not CURRENTLY reporting.  

 

Assuming that they ignored the request and a letter is not in the mail. Are you saying it means nothing and there is no recourse?

 

 

I promise you that there is no private right of action under 1692s-2(a).

 

The FCRA is clear that there is no private right of action for alleged violations of section 1681s-2(a), the requirement that furnishers provide accurate information to credit reporting agencies. Ilodianya v. Capital One Bank USA, NA, 853 F. Supp. 2d 772, 774 (E.D. Ark. 2012).

 

You could try sending a letter directly to the JDB, dispute their entry again, and request all documentation that they have on the account including, but not limited to, credit card statements.  You never know.  They might send you some information that could help you determine your next step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mantis Knight

 

 

Let's put it this way:  They're not updating.   Just because the entry is on your CR doesn't mean the furnisher is still updating the entry.

 

Since they no longer own the account and don't update the entry, they don't check it anymore.   That's what I mean when I say that they are not CURRENTLY reporting.  

 

 

I promise you that there is no private right of action under 1692s-2(a.

 

The FCRA is clear that there is no private right of action for alleged violations of section 1681s-2(a, the requirement that furnishers provide accurate information to credit reporting agencies. Ilodianya v. Capital One Bank USA, NA, 853 F. Supp. 2d 772, 774 (E.D. Ark. 2012).

 

You could try sending a letter directly to the JDB, dispute their entry again, and request all documentation that they have on the account including, but not limited to, credit card statements.  You never know.  They might send you some information that could help you determine your next step.

 

@BV80

From the link at the top of the page http://www.how-to-credit-repair.org/disputing-with-original-creditor.html

 

However, if you have disputed the information with the credit bureaus FIRST, they are supposed to have talked to the original creditor, even though we know that doesn't happen, and the original creditor is supposed to have at that time conducted an investigation, under FCRA § 623 (b, under which you, as a private citizen CAN sue them. When you go to the original creditor under FCRA § 623 (a)(8), you are just merely asking for the OC's proof that they must have (hear the sarcasm in my voice here) provided to the credit bureaus during the OC's thorough (there's that sarcasm again) investigation. If they have no proof of negative information, but the credit bureau says that the results of the investigation show the negative information is accurate, then you have the OC on an actionable, sue-able (by you) offense.

Is this information old, inaccurate, or not applicable to my situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mantis Knight

 

A furnisher's duties after receiving notice of a dispute from the CRAs  are outlined in 1681s-2(b).  Under 1681s-2(b), a furnisher is not required to respond to you.  They must respond to the CRAs.

 

Responding directly to you would be a result of receiving a notice of dispute from you (1681s-2(a)), not the CRAs.   Since responding to you is under 1681s-2(a), you can't sue them for failing to send you a response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 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.