jimmy1611

623 Dispute Method Step 1 (criticism requested)

Recommended Posts

OK Ive been looking and trolling for years and i think I'm ready to begin.

 

I'm going to provide a pretty detailed step by step log so folks can see this in real time. I would greatly appreciate any comments. Im thick skinned so, lay it on me. If you find this helpful give us a BUMP.

 

Pulled credit reports and I have 9 trade lines that are reporting negatively. Some to all 3 some to only 2. So, 22 total entries.

 

Ive been looking around and the 623 letter method seems to be the way to go. Ive used DV with some success several years ago and I got 5 neg TLs off. I didnt really stick with it and once my scores were high enough i quit. This time im going for broke. All the way. Or at least as far as "they" will let me.

 

Current situation

 

Credit scores are: TRU 563, XPN 586, EFX 543

 

First Premier OC $0 reporting 3-30 and 1-60 lates on all 3

USAA OC $5075 Auto loan charged off 4/13 reporting all 3

Nuvell Credit OC $5075 Auto loan repo (no mention of repo) charged off 05/2008 reporting URU and XPN

Certified Recovery Sys CA $867 Some bank i never used. Reporting all 3

Frost Bank OC $835 Old account i didnt know about. Write off 04/2011 reporting to all 3

TSI/09 CA $805 Direct TV not mine (seems super high for DTV) last act 11/2014 (not possible) reporting to all 3

Stellar Rec CA $395 Comcast last act 9/2012 reporting all 3

Nationwide Recovery CA $48 Medical not mine. last 11/2013 Reporting EFX and XPN

 

$4416 total but not all me.

 

So, Im gonna start with Cert Recov Sys and here is the letter (below) to the CRAs that im thinking of sending. It might be a tad harsh, Im OK with a nicer letter this is just what im starting with...

 

!!ALL COMMENTS WELCOME!!

 

*****************LETTER************************

 

Equifax Information Services
P.O. BOX 740256
Atlanta, GA 30374

 

Sep 19, 2015

 

To whom it may concern,

This letter is a formal complaint that you are reporting inaccurate credit information.

I am Shocked that Equifax has included the below information in my credit profile. It is completely inaccurate and is hurting my reputation and good name. This account is NOT MINE! I worked at Patriot Bank for a few months in 2005 and NEVER had a loan of any kind. As you know, credit reporting laws ensure that bureaus report only accurate credit information. Because of the mistakes on my credit report, I have been wrongfully denied credit recently for a Loan, which was highly embarrassing and has negatively impacted my lifestyle.

I expect Equifax to perform the following duties as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act

  • Conduct a full investigation of the dispute and NOT JUST a verification of the information.
  • Review all information provided by Certified Recovery relating to the dispute.
  • Respond within 30 days to the investigation.
  • If the information is incomplete or inaccurate, Equifax must remove the claim immediately.

Certified Recovery

6161 Savoy Dr 600 Hou, TX  77036

Account #726766


Please delete the above account as quickly as possible.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

JIMMY1611

DOB: **********

SSN# *********
ADDRESS

 

Ref:EQFCERTRECOV19SEP2015

Cert Mail:7015 1730 0002 1239 5897

 

 

*****************END LETTER************************

 

!!ALL COMMENTS WELCOME!!

 

Drivers license scan attached as proof of ID

 

Im using the cert mail number everywhere, on the letter on the envelope etc... not sure if this is helpful it just seems more professional to me.

 

If this is Ok ill send out round 1 Friday or Monday the 21st. Ill update this whenever something new comes up. Ill attach links to any letters I get and ones I send.

 

Thanks in advance to any comments.

 

JIMMY

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never send a letter like that. Any dispute to a CRA that I send would look like this:

"I am disputing Idiot Collectors account #1234 on my credit report. This is not my account, please remove."

I would include the certified number in the letter and send your ID verifications too, but this list of demands and personal problems are irrelevant and unnessecary.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Fist! This is a revised version of the DV letter i used several years ago. I used it mostly for CAs. Keep it simple..

 

*****************LETTER************************

 

Equifax Information Services
P.O. BOX 740256
Atlanta, GA 30374

 

Sep 19, 2015

 

To whom it may concern,

This letter is a formal request for an investigation into the account listed below.  This account is NOT MINE! I worked at Patriot Bank for a few months in 2005 but NEVER had a loan of any kind.


Certified Recovery

6161 Savoy Dr 600 Hou, TX  77036

Account #726766


Please delete the above account as quickly as possible.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

JIMMY1611

DOB: **********

SSN# *********
ADDRESS

 

Ref:EQFCERTRECOV19SEP2015

Cert Mail:7015 1730 0002 1239 5897

 

 

*****************END LETTER************************

 

 

Better?

I was trying to avoid being blown off and the CRA just verifying the info like they have done in the past...

 

-JIMMY

Link to post
Share on other sites

THANKS CHEESE!

Im assuming you are a wrastlin fan. Im not a huge fan but i watch it with my nephew. Pretty funny stuff.

Check out

.....WHAT?

 

Update

 

22 accounts total.

 

Sent out 20 Cert Mail letters (2 were returned resending them)

5 accounts deleted on those accounts 9 more possible delets on the way

6 accounts not responded

1 verified. AFNI for an old AT&T account...

 

Looking into options for the 1 verification. May sue CRA and CA, may send letters to CA first.

 

Any advice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the verified account, I might try to send a MOV letter.  This is a letter to the CRA asking them to provide to you the method used to verify this account and for the name and address of the person who verified the information to them.

 

The CRA has 15 days to respond to an MOV request.  Generally, they will only respond with a generic form letter describing the general way disputes are handled.  They never have send me the specific information asked for.  However, if I check my reports a couple weeks later I will usually find they have quietly removed the account.  This is their way of avoiding the FCRA lawsuit.  If they don't remove it, however, I would sue them for not providing proper MOV upon request and also for verifying incorrect information (assuming you can prove in court the info is not correct.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to modify my previous reply slightly.  Unless you get a consumer attorney to represent you on any FCRA violations, instead of filing a suit against a CRA in federal court, I would use arbitraiton.  The FCRA is a more complicated statute than the FDCPA and arbitraiton would be easier for a pro-se in a more informal setting (i.e. you won't kill your case on a technicallity by accidentally violating federal court rules).  I have arbitrated with CRAs a couple times.  They tend to settle quickly rather than paying for an expensive arbitration hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Cheese

Got 5 verified letters.

Sent MOVs to all 5.

Thanks Cheese

Got 5 verified letters.

Sent MOVs to all 5.

Ok so I understand you.

You sent dispute letters to the credit reporting agency's.

The credit reporting agency's verify the trade lines.

Then you said method of verification letters to who?

I do 623 like this

I send a dispute letter to the credit reporting agency. They verify.

Then I send a letter to the owner of the trade line. This letter asks for records of the the account that explains how the trade line is

reported.

Wait 30 days. No response= deletion required by federal law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@cinnamngrl

 

Actually, a "method of verification" request is supposed to be sent to the CRAs.

 

1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii) and 1681i(a)(7):

 

(6) Notice of results of reinvestigation

(B) Contents   As part of, or in addition to, the notice under subparagraph (A), a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer in writing before the expiration of the 5-day period referred to in subparagraph (A)—

(iii) a notice that, if requested by the consumer, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information shall be provided to the consumer by the agency, including the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available;

(7) Description of reinvestigation procedure

A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer a description referred to in paragraph (6)(B)(iii) by not later than 15 days after receiving a request from the consumer for that description.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@cinnamngrl

 

There is no legal requirement for a TL to be deleted due to no response from the furnisher.  Only the CRA has a legal obligation to respond to any dispute within 30 days.

 

I have never understood the reason for the "623 method" beecause there is no legal authority behind it.  Once the CRA has verified incorrect information, a violation of the FCRA has already occured.  At that point, you either sue, arbitrate to force a removal or correction.  The MOV is an option to try before suing or arbitrating because it is easier and sometimes an effecive alternative way to get a deletion. If the MOV does not work, they may have just added another FCRA violation to your claim too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@cinnamngrl

There is no legal requirement for a TL to be deleted due to no response from the furnisher. Only the CRA has a legal obligation to respond to any dispute within 30 days.

I have never understood the reason for the "623 method" beecause there is no legal authority behind it. Once the CRA has verified incorrect information, a violation of the FCRA has already occured. At that point, you either sue, arbitrate to force a removal or correction. The MOV is an option to try before suing or arbitrating because it is easier and sometimes an effecive alternative way to get a deletion. If the MOV does not work, they may have just added another FCRA violation to your claim too.

§ 623 - 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2

page90image1080

(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 infor- mation;

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

(iii) complete such person’s investigation of the dispute and re- port 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 agen- cy to which the person furnished the inaccurate informa- tion 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.

The time period is 30 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not knocking MOV. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Basically you are saying to the CRA that "how can you report this when I can't even get the trade line reporter (original creditor) to reply to my inquiry?"

CRA's use an internal electronic system that verifies only whether they are reporting the information that the company send them. Credit reporting agency's do not make any independent information of whether that information is accurate.

623 is the section of the law that guarantees you a right to a response from the original creditor. The original creditor has to send you records that support the way they're reporting your account to the credit reporting agency's. True, The law does not require them to make any response but they can't continue to report your account if they can't Reproduce the same data that causes them to report the Account as delinquent. The law does say that the reasonable time period is the same as defined in 611 1. (30 days).

So I would point out that method of verification would not work very well unless you've already made a 623 inquiry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@cinnamngrl

 

 

§ 623 - 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2

page90image1080
(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 infor- mation;

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

(iii) complete such person’s investigation of the dispute and re- port 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 agen- cy to which the person furnished the inaccurate informa- tion 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.


The time period is 30 days

 

The subsection you've quoted is from 1681s-2(a).  While that section does allow consumers to dispute directly with the furnisher, there is no private right of action for consumers under that subsection if the furnisher does not comply.  Consumers only have a private right of action under subsection s-2(b) (disputing directly with the CRAs).

 

1681n and 1681o describe the penalties for violating the Act and what would be owed to consumers.  1681s-2©:

 

© Limitation on liability

 

Except as provided in section 1681s©(1)(B) of this title, sections 1681n and 1681o of this title do not apply to any violation of

(1) subsection (a) of this section, including any regulations issued thereunder;

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@cinnamngrl

 

 

 

The subsection you've quoted is from 1681s-2(a).  While that section does allow consumers to dispute directly with the furnisher, there is no private right of action for consumers under that subsection if the furnisher does not comply.  Consumers only have a private right of action under subsection s-2(b) (disputing directly with the CRAs).

 

1681n and 1681o describe the penalties for violating the Act and what would be owed to consumers.  1681s-2©:

 

© Limitation on liability

 

Except as provided in section 1681s©(1)(B) of this title, sections 1681n and 1681o of this title do not apply to any violation of

(1) subsection (a) of this section, including any regulations issued thereunder;

 

@cinnamngrl The above is what I mean.  So, yes, they technically have 30 days to respond... but if they don't, then what?  You can't do anything about it.  Therefore, I say it is pointless.  They can and they will either ignore or send the same collection letter they send in response to a DV letter.  They don't really care because they can't be sued if they don't comply.

 

I like to stick wtih the parts of the statute that give me solid leverage.  An MOV gives you the right to sue if they do not comply. This gives the MOV a greater wieight to it and a much more likelyhood of action being taken to avoid legal liablily.

 

I can tell you that of the 11 MOVs I have personally made for myself and family members, 11 of them resulted in TL deletions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@fisthardcheese

 

The MOV is an option to try before suing or arbitrating because it is easier and sometimes an effecive alternative way to get a deletion. If the MOV does not work, they may have just added another FCRA violation to your claim too.

 

 

When you say "they may have added", are you referring to the CRAs or the furnishers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. This website actually has a great explanation of The 623 method. For some reason I can't paste the link from my iPad.

2. If you start by disputing with the CRA and then dispute with credit furnisher, and that furnisher does not respond with evidence to support/agree with what that credit furnisher is telling the CRA then that company is liable.

This method has worked very well for me, I am sorry you don't understand it. My best example would be Bank of America.

I had several negative Bank of America entries on my credit report. One was so old it was actually listed as Fleet Bank. I sent several different letters to Bank of America disputing this account. Turns out this was actually a collection agency account and they listed it on my credit report as fleet bank but it was actually being furnished by collection agency. So in the same week I received two different responses one was a letter from Bank of America saying that won't have any record of this negative account and one was a phone call from someone at Bank of America saying the information was accurate. I pointed out that I was holding a letter in my hand that said they did not have records of the account and they would contact the three credit reporting agency's to delete the entry.

Another negative account was A visa that I had paid off but there were they seem to have some records of late payments. When I contacted Bank of America they stated that they would drop all lates older than two years as policy. I provided records of my own that disputed a couple of late payments and they deleted the whole account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@fisthardcheese

 

 

When you say "they may have added", are you referring to the CRAs or the furnishers?

 

The CRA.  Depending on how they respond to the MOV - I find that almost 100% of the time they never provide the actual method used nor the name and address of the company or person who verified the information to the CRA.  This is a violation of 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii) which could be added to the initial violatoin of verifying the incorrect information after the initial dispute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. This website actually has a great explanation of The 623 method. For some reason I can't paste the link from my iPad.

2. If you start by disputing with the CRA and then dispute with credit furnisher, and that furnisher does not respond with evidence to support/agree with what that credit furnisher is telling the CRA then that company is liable.

 

Liable under what law? 

 

They are not legally liable.

 

I understand the method clearly, it just has no teeth.  You were lucky that the business decided to do the right thing out of the goodness of their heart.  If they hadn't (as is the case in the majority of the cases I have seen and dealt with), you have no legal recourse other than to continue to write letters until you are blue in the hand.  I prefer to bypass the extra work, time and expense and only use the methods that allow me to use arbitration or courts to force the hand of someone who does not comply with the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@fisthardcheese

 

 

The CRA.  Depending on how they respond to the MOV - I find that almost 100% of the time they never provide the actual method used nor the name and address of the company or person who verified the information to the CRA.  This is a violation of 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii) which could be added to the initial violatoin of verifying the incorrect information after the initial dispute.

 

 

I see what you mean about the CRA , the MOV, 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii), and I agree.  However, the CRA would not be liable under 1681s-2(b) for verifying incorrect information.  That subsection applies to furnishers.   It's the furnisher that has verified incorrect information and told the CRA that the information is correct.

 

1681s-2(b):

 

(b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute

 

(1) In generalAfter receiving notice pursuant to section 1681i(a)(2) of this title 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 1681i(a)(2) of this title;
(C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency;

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@cinnamngrl

 

2. If you start by disputing with the CRA and then dispute with credit furnisher, and that furnisher does not respond with evidence to support/agree with what that credit furnisher is telling the CRA then that company is liable.

 

 

If you dispute with the furnisher and the furnisher does not respond, the furnisher is not liable to you for not responding with evidence.   Again, disputing with the furnisher is under 1682s-2(a) and consumers have no private right of action to sue under s-2(a).  You could sued under s-2(b) because the furnisher verified incorrect information, but you coult NOT claim a violation for the furnisher failing to respond with evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@fisthardcheese

 

 

 

 

I see what you mean about the CRA , the MOV, 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii), and I agree.  However, the CRA would not be liable under 1681s-2(b) for verifying incorrect information.  That subsection applies to furnishers.   It's the furnisher that has verified incorrect information and told the CRA that the information is correct.

 

1681s-2(b):

 

(b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute

 

(1) In generalAfter receiving notice pursuant to section 1681i(a)(2) of this title 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 1681i(a)(2) of this title;

(C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency;

 

Yes, you are right @BV80

 

Thanks for correcting that.

 

The furnisher is liable for verifying incorrect information when you dispute a TL with the CRAs.  Then, the liability shifts to the CRAs when you request MOV.

 

This is why I like MOV.  The CRAs have nothing on you to counter with, so they do not like to be hanging in the wind with a potential vioaltion on them. Therefore, they almost always simply remove the TL when you shift liability to them by triggering the 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii) request.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Liable under what law?

They are not legally liable.

I understand the method clearly, it just has no teeth. You were lucky that the business decided to do the right thing out of the goodness of their heart. If they hadn't (as is the case in the majority of the cases I have seen and dealt with), you have no legal recourse other than to continue to write letters until you are blue in the hand. I prefer to bypass the extra work, time and expense and only use the methods that allow me to use arbitration or courts to force the hand of someone who does not comply with the law.

If you dispute first with the CRA, then directly with credit furnisher. The furnisher is subject to 1k penalty per violation for sending information to the CRA that they can't or won't conduct a reasonable investigation.

The combination is important if you only dispute directly with the credit furnisher then there is no penalty for not having records they still have to fix them but there's no legal penalty.

$1000 is a fairly low fine and if that's what you mean by no teeth you have to remember that in these lawsuits the victim will recover all legal costs as well. But I find the best thing to do at this point is to file a complaint with the federal regulatory agency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@fisthardcheese

 

This is why I like MOV.  The CRAs have nothing on you to counter with, so they do not like to be hanging in the wind with a potential vioaltion on them. Therefore, they almost always simply remove the TL when you shift liability to them by triggering the 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii) request.

 

 

Very good point.  :-)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@cinnamngrl

 

 

If you dispute first with the CRA, then directly with credit furnisher. The furnisher is subject to 1k penalty per violation for sending information to the CRA that they can't or won't conduct a reasonable investigation.

The combination is important if you only dispute directly with the credit furnisher then there is no penalty for not having records they still have to fix them but there's no legal penalty.

 

 

 You're correct that the furnisher will not be liable if you only dispute with the furnisher. 

 

You are not required to dispute directly with the furnisher AT ALL in order for the furnisher to be liable for verifying incorrect information.  Verifying incorrect information with the CRAs is what causes the violation. 

 

The only reasons one might want to dispute directly with the furnisher after it has verified the information is to either make the furnisher tired of you and cause it to possibly delete the entry OR to try to prove "willfulness" on the part of the furnisher.

 

Penalties under the FCRA are based upon either willfulness or actual damages.  In order to be awarded the statutory penalty of $1000, you must show that the furnisher willingly (knowingly) violated the Act.   If you can't show that, no statutory penalty.  Read 1681n

 

Per 1681o, if you can only show negligence, you can only receive actual damages.  If you have no actual damages, no award.

  • Like 1
Link to post
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.