CN2Ride

Canned response to MOV Letter to CRA Next step?

Recommended Posts

I recently disputed  an  LVNV trade line with EQ & TU.  Of course, both came back "Verified".  I sent the following letter to both companies certified with return receipt.  

Dear Consumer Relations, 

After receiving and reviewing the results of a recent dispute filed with your company, I am now requesting the method you used to verify certain items on the credit file dated XXXXX.  FCRA  (a)(6)(B)(iii) states that upon request you must provide me with a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information.  This includes, but is not limited to the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information and the contact information of such furnisher if reasonably available.   I am requesting this for the following accounts  XXXXXXXXXX  

As stated in FCRA  611 (a)(7) you must provide this information no later than 15 days after receiving this request.  I appreciate your handling of this request in a timely manner.  

 

Both companies responded with basically the same canned response.    We may search for information electronically,  we update your credit file with information received, etc.   No specifics as to the dispute in question.  I also sent a letter to the Furnisher asking them to check the accuracy of what they are reporting with 30 days to respond. (they still have 2 weeks to respond)   My question is,  what is the next step with the CRA's?  This is obviously their attempt at "we aren't giving you any additional information"  

 

Thanks in advance, any help is greatly appreciated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CN2Ride

The section of the FCRA that you cited does not apply to the furnishers of the information (LVNV and the OC).  It applies to the CRAs.  This is the first part of the section you cited:

(B) ContentsAs 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)—

Here's the very next section:

(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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,  the balance, first date of delinquency,  and account opened date are all incorrect. I assume they are doing this in an attempt to re-age the debt.  My records indicate the FDD with the OC was back in 2006. I've been disputing this account for a couple of years. This is the first time trying the MOV.  The letter sent to lvnv specifically states what I want them to investigate.   Should I wait until the 30 days is up for lvnv to respond before I hit up the cra again?   I will post the letter send to lvnv shortly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the letter that I sent to the furnisher 

 

December 22, 2015

 

 

LVNV Funding LLC.                                                           

P.O. Box 10497                                                      

Ste 110 MS 576                                                       

Greenville, SC

29603-0497

 

 

To whom it may concern:

 

 

 

This is a Notice of Direct Dispute under the provisions of FCRA §623(a)(8)(D) and 16 CFR 660.4, of the accuracy of information you have reported to my credit file. This is not a request for debt  validation/verification  under FDCPA §809(b).

Account# XXXXXXXX opened 4/1/2010. Reporting to Equifax & Trans Union.

 

 

Basis for the dispute:

           

You are reporting a balance of $11,XXX on this account with a first date of delinquency of 9/2009.  I am requesting that you investigate the accuracy of your reporting and describe the method you used to calculate the reported balance. Please explain how the first delinquency you reported is before the reported  “Date Opened”.  Also explain how you established the reported “High Credit” amount of $6,XXX.  Also, please provide proof of how you are certain the account belongs to me as you just confirmed with the credit reporting agencies.

 

 

Please see attached Credit report and dispute investigation results attached.  You are reporting inaccurate information to the credit reporting agencies.  Please produce results of your investigation within 30 days of receipt of this letter in writing to the address provided at the top of this letter OR remove the negative information you are reporting to the credit reporting agencies and send written confirmation of doing so.

 

I have the return receipt that they got it on 12/27 so they have a few weeks to respond.  If they don't respond, I was planning to send a copy of this letter along with the green copy showing they got it in hopes the CRA will just delete at that point.  I've heard it's a real pain to get an LVNV TL removed.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CN2Ride

If LVNV is reporting a "date opened" that's later than the date being reported by the OC, LVNV is merely reporting the date the account was opened in it's files.  It does not mean that it's claiming you opened the account on that date.    That's why the date of first delinquency would be earlier than the date opened.

There is nothing in the FCRA that says they have to explain each item you've requested.   Even if they were required to do so, there's no private right of action under §623(a)(8)(D) (15 USC 1681s-2(a)).

The FCRA does not require that they remove information if they don't produce the results of their investigation within 30 days.  They've already verified with the CRAs.  If you take any action, it would up to you to prove information is incorrect.  Also, in order to collect statutory damages, you'd have to show that the CRAs or furnishers willfully violated the FCRA.  If you can't show willfulness and can only show negligence, then you must have actual damages.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you get the canned response from the CRA and they have not removed the TL, then you have an FCRA violation against the CRAs.  Even if there are no errors in the reporting of that TL, the CRAs have failed to properly respond to the MOV as stated by 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii).  Since they have violated this part of the FCRA, I would file an arbitration claim against the CRA.  The CRAs hate arbitration because if they spend the thousands to complete and win the case, the only thing they get out of it is to continue reporting the account on your credit reports.  Instead, I find that they like to settle these claims quickly so they do not have to participate in arbitration.  You can include TL removal as part of your settlement.

Just as a side note, I would not be so wordy in my letters.  They tip off creditors that you are copy/pasting things from the internet and that you may not actually know what you are talking about (even if you do).  I like to keep all my letters short and simple.  I never cite the laws to a creditor or CRA and tell them they must adhere to the law.  If a creditor does not know the laws that govern their own business, that is not my problem.  I will simply tell a CRA to provide to me the method they used, the name, address and phone number of the person who verified the TL to them.  That's all.  If they don't know the law and requirement to respond properly, it's not my problem.  Besides that, they do know - they are just hoping you don't actually know and hope they can get away with a cheap and easy generic form letter response. 99.9% of the time, they are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2016 at 9:40 AM, fisthardcheese said:

Once you get the canned response from the CRA and they have not removed the TL, then you have an FCRA violation against the CRAs.  Even if there are no errors in the reporting of that TL, the CRAs have failed to properly respond to the MOV as stated by 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii).  Since they have violated this part of the FCRA, I would file an arbitration claim against the CRA.  The CRAs hate arbitration because if they spend the thousands to complete and win the case, the only thing they get out of it is to continue reporting the account on your credit reports.  Instead, I find that they like to settle these claims quickly so they do not have to participate in arbitration.  You can include TL removal as part of your settlement.

Just as a side note, I would not be so wordy in my letters.  They tip off creditors that you are copy/pasting things from the internet and that you may not actually know what you are talking about (even if you do).  I like to keep all my letters short and simple.  I never cite the laws to a creditor or CRA and tell them they must adhere to the law.  If a creditor does not know the laws that govern their own business, that is not my problem.  I will simply tell a CRA to provide to me the method they used, the name, address and phone number of the person who verified the TL to them.  That's all.  If they don't know the law and requirement to respond properly, it's not my problem.  Besides that, they do know - they are just hoping you don't actually know and hope they can get away with a cheap and easy generic form letter response. 99.9% of the time, they are correct.

Do you mind briefly highlighting the process? What happens if the CRAs simply don’t respond to arbitration? Also, where does it state that FCRA disputes can be brought up in arbitration? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, KevinErrbenn said:

Do you mind briefly highlighting the process? What happens if the CRAs simply don’t respond to arbitration? Also, where does it state that FCRA disputes can be brought up in arbitration? 

Since I posted that 3 years ago, I can tell you that the CRAs WILL refuse to arbitrate by simply ignoring your demand.  They MAY respond to AAA/JAMS by stating that you have no standing because they have changed all of their terms and conditions now to make fewer people party to their arbitration agreements, no to mention even if you are a proper party under their agreements, they have been made far less consumer friendly.  You will find that the new arbitration agreements apply to off-shoot branches of their company. For instance with Equifax, they will say that your credit report and MOV were provided by Equifax Consumer Info LLC (or similar, I'm not looking up the exact names now), while the arbitration agreement only applies to consumers doing business with Equifax Monitoring LLC (as an example).   While good arguments can be made that perhaps both companies being under the umbrella of the same parent company makes both parties to the arbitration agreement, the fact is that you will have to make this argument to a Federal Court and it won't be an easy task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2016 at 9:40 AM, fisthardcheese said:

Once you get the canned response from the CRA and they have not removed the TL, then you have an FCRA violation against the CRAs.  Even if there are no errors in the reporting of that TL, the CRAs have failed to properly respond to the MOV as stated by 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii).  Since they have violated this part of the FCRA, I would file an arbitration claim against the CRA.  The CRAs hate arbitration because if they spend the thousands to complete and win the case, the only thing they get out of it is to continue reporting the account on your credit reports.  Instead, I find that they like to settle these claims quickly so they do not have to participate in arbitration.  You can include TL removal as part of your settlement.

 

Thanks for this insight.  I was always under the impression the generic response satisfied the statutory requirement under 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii).   The clause seems generic stating that they need only provide a "description of the procedure used to verify..." and "business name, address, and telephone number if reasonably available."  

Those generic responses seem to provide a general enough description, and I've seen so many differing opinions on this subject, I'd be interested to learn more for my own credit work as to what the precedents are.

Your time and consideration is genuinely appreciated.

Share this post


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.