Interesting MOV Letter Case

[HarryGotHurt]

I sent a dispute letter to all 3 CRAs on October 2018.  I disputed DOFD, DOLP, Payment amount, Date Open and Date Closed. Within 30 days I received responses from all three verifying the information.

Equifax verified:

1. Date Opened: 3/31/2017
2. Date Closed: N/A 
3. Date of Last Payment: N/A
4. Date of First Delinquency: July/2015

However they listed this account as OPEN with a Charge Off Amount of $0 and a payment history reporting late every month for 15 months!

Experian verified:

1. Date Opened: 3/31/2017
2. Date Closed: N/A 
3. Date of Last Payment: N/A
4. Date of First Delinquency: N/A

They however list this account as "On Record Until: April 2022". Wouldn't this mean the DOFD was 7 years prior to April 2022 so approx. April 2015?

Experian is also listing this as OPEN.

Transunion:

Never verified or completed investigation. Their website state "Estimated competition May 31st, 2019". But this date changes every time I check. Should I request deletion based on this?

 

Question 1: Should I send a MOV letter for these disputes and give them 15 days? or is it too late now since this was in Oct 2018?

Question 2: Should I send a new dispute verifying ownership and if verified the send MOV for the verification of ownership?

Question 3: Should I request deletion from Transunion since the investigation failed to be completed within 30 days?

 

What's interesting is they both verified these accounts as Open, with Terms 1 month, with a high balance of $XXXX, etc. but now they are correctly listed as a collection so they verified an account that was reported incorrectly. How can I use this to my advantage? 

[Harry Seaward]

11 minutes ago, Boisvert said:

Never verified or completed investigation. Their website state "Estimated competition May 31st, 2019". But this date changes every time I check.

Do you have proof it keeps changing? 

12 minutes ago, Boisvert said:

Should I send a MOV letter for these disputes and give them 15 days? 

MOV letters are a waste of time. They invariably respond with "the information was verified electronically."

13 minutes ago, Boisvert said:

Should I send a new dispute verifying ownership

You've already disputed these accounts. They aren't in the business of piecemeal investigations. They (rightfully) assume your first dispute identifies all of the info you believe is inaccurate. If you believe the entries are still inaccurate following their 'corrections', your remedy is to sue them for FCRA violations. 

20 minutes ago, Boisvert said:

What's interesting is they both verified these accounts as Open, with Terms 1 month, with a high balance of $XXXX, etc. but now they are correctly listed as a collection. How can I use this to my advantage? 

Who is "they both"? Do you have proof it was verified inaccurately? If so, again, your remedy is to sue them for FCRA violations. 

[HarryGotHurt]

21 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

Do you have proof it keeps changing? 

MOV letters are a waste of time. They invariably respond with "the information was verified electronically."

You've already disputed these accounts. They aren't in the business of piecemeal investigations. They (rightfully) assume your first dispute identifies all of the info you believe is inaccurate. If you believe the entries are still inaccurate following their 'corrections', your remedy is to sue them for FCRA violations. 

Who is "they both"? Do you have proof it was verified inaccurately? If so, again, your remedy is to sue them for FCRA violations. 

1. Yes.

2. They can provide a generic eOscar reply but still constitutes a violation.

3. They are inaccurate and have been inaccurate over the last years, just recently they stop reporting them as Open account and not report as collections.

4. Experian and Equifax.  Yes. They verified payment terms, monthly payments, etc. They verified a collection listed as an installment open account. 

[Harry Seaward]

I'd make appointments with 3 or 4 different consumer rights lawyers and see what they have to say. 

https://www.consumeradvocates.org/find-an-attorney

[fisthardcheese]

How did you send the disputes?  You mention checking the status online.  If you disputed this on the website, then they actually have 45 days to complete the investigation.  Plus if I recall there is another 15 day grace period for some instances.  So unless it has been over 60 days, you can't do much about it yet.

19 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

MOV letters are a waste of time. They invariably respond with "the information was verified electronically."

Granted, it has been 4 or 5 years since I used this method heavily.  The CRAs seem to not be set up to deal with MOV letters properly according to the FCRA.  Just stating "it was verified electronically" does not satisfy the FCRA requirements of providing the name and address or phone number of the person who verified the information.  They never include this.  But on the other hand, it is a very technical violation and no attorney is going to waste time on it.  I used this violation as part of arbitration cases against the CRAs who gladly agreed to settle almost immediately when all I asked for is TL deletion and no money.  HOWEVER, I know it is now much harder to take the CRAs to arbitration so using the MOV is much less simple than it used to be.  The CRAs will now most certainly force you to file a PTC in federal court before they will even entertain the idea of responding to the arbitration claims.

[HarryGotHurt]

55 minutes ago, fisthardcheese said:

How did you send the disputes?  You mention checking the status online.  If you disputed this on the website, then they actually have 45 days to complete the investigation.  Plus if I recall there is another 15 day grace period for some instances.  So unless it has been over 60 days, you can't do much about it yet.

Granted, it has been 4 or 5 years since I used this method heavily.  The CRAs seem to not be set up to deal with MOV letters properly according to the FCRA.  Just stating "it was verified electronically" does not satisfy the FCRA requirements of providing the name and address or phone number of the person who verified the information.  They never include this.  But on the other hand, it is a very technical violation and no attorney is going to waste time on it.  I used this violation as part of arbitration cases against the CRAs who gladly agreed to settle almost immediately when all I asked for is TL deletion and no money.  HOWEVER, I know it is now much harder to take the CRAs to arbitration so using the MOV is much less simple than it used to be.  The CRAs will now most certainly force you to file a PTC in federal court before they will even entertain the idea of responding to the arbitration claims.

Hi

I sent them in Sept by paper and after 30 days of no response I opened them online. 

The first ones were without CMRR. 

Even thought an attorney might not pursue the CRAs based on the 2-3 violations I have, i’ll still proceed with Arbitration if they do not delete this tradeline. I requested the open date, DOFD, last payment and close date to be verified and they only verified one of those and the other three are either incomplete or inaccurate. 

They also verified this Collection account as an past due OPEN revolving tradeline with monthly late payment and just now (last week) started reporting it as a collection account.  

[HarryGotHurt]

QUICK UPDATE:

I sent a Notice of Election to Arbitrate letter to the JDB, and 2 days letters sent the MOV letter to the 3 CRAs. Just got a notification from Experian that my credit went up. After checking the reports, the trade-in was removed from all 3 CRAs. Credit went from 685 to 746! ?