Data Furnisher Thread FCRA 623 - Links, Discussions, and More

[Jen23514]

the link above was testimony from 2003.

 

you can see here in his testimony from 2007, nothing changed for the better:

 

http://financialservices.house.gov/hearing...nnett061907.pdf

[beli]

Yes, interesting indeed where they were quoting someone from Cap No saying that they "Wanted to do a full investigation" but the reps said no..

 

 

I ran across those a few weeks ago doing some research, and had forgot about those.

[Jen23514]

Consumer States a FDCPA Claim Where Debt Collector Failed to Report Disputed Status of Debt to CRAs

 

Quale v. Unifund CCR Partners, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124219 (S.D. Ala. Oct. 21, 2009)

 

Facts: Pro sePlaintiff filed suit against Defendant Unifund CC Partners (“Unifundâ€), a debt collector, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPAâ€) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRAâ€). Plaintiff disputed a debt with Unifund, but Unifund did not validate the debt and did not report the debt as disputed to the credit reporting agencies (the “CRAsâ€). Plaintiff alleged that (1) Unifund violated §§ 1692g( and 1691e by failing to provide the plaintiff with validation of his debt and by reporting derogatory information about the debt to the CRAs; (2) Unifund violated § 1681s-2(a) by failing to verify the plaintiff’s debt and by reporting erroneous information to the CRAs; and (3) Unifund violated § 1681s-2( by failing to notify the CRAs that the alleged debt was in dispute. Unifund filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12((6), which the Court denied as to the FDCPA claims but granted as to the FCRA claims .

 

 

* Verification of Debt. The Court denied Unifund’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims under § 1692g( because Unifund failed to provide the plaintiff with verification of his debt within 30 days and failed to cease all collection efforts. The Court held that reporting a charged-off debt to a CRA constitutes a collection activity on the part of the collector.

 

* Notification of Disputed Debt. The Court denied Unifund’s motion to dismiss under § 1692e because Unifund failed to notify the CRAs that Plaintiff’s debt was disputed. A debt collector violates § 1682e when it communicates to any person credit information “which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.â€

 

* Failure to State a Claim. The Court granted Unifund’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims under the FCRA for two reasons. First, an individual plaintiff has no private right of action against a debt collector for providing inaccurate information to a CRA under § 1681s-2(a). Second, while a private right of action does exist under § 1681s-2( for failing to investigate the accuracy of the reported information, this provision is triggered only if the debt collector received notice of the consumer’s dispute from a CRA. Here, there was no allegation that Unifund received notice of the plaintiff’s dispute from a CRA; instead, the dispute came directly from Plaintiff.

 

http://www.strasburger.com/fcrablog/templa...link.asp?id=391

[sedric1]

bump for myself

i somehow missed this thread all of last year

[cashnocredit]

Fascinating set of links in this thread. Thanks.

[NeverQuietHere]

ttt

 

Lots of good info in here.

[Jen23514]

I always thought the Bennett testimony of the DF/CRA cluster was interesting:

 

http://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/060403lb.pdf

 

and this why 90% of the time your disputes are "verified" even when they are wrong and you can prove they are wrong.

 

bumping this for a few threads I've seen this week.

 

once you read this, you'll look at your CRA disputes in a new light.

[Rebuilding2010]

bump for myself

i somehow missed this thread all of last year

Same here, I'm going to need this in the next two weeks.

[Rebuilding2010]

Self bump

[Rebuilding2010]

However, a consumer can sue to enforce section 623( which has a relationship with the (a) provisions.

( Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute

(1) In general

After 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�€â€

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

( review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 1681i (a)(2) of this title;

� report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency;

(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis; and

(E) if an item of information disputed by a consumer is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1), for purposes of reporting to a consumer reporting agency only, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation promptly�€â€

(i) modify that item of information;

(ii) delete that item of information; or

(iii) permanently block the reporting of that item of information.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/us...81---s002-.html

 

 

 

My understanding of all of this is that you can sue the data furnsiher under section 623( of the FCRA for reporting inaccurate/unverifiable information. You have to dispute it with the credit bureau first and the provider verified it and continues to report info that you feel is inaccurate or unverifiable.

 

You then send the provider of info (OC, CA, etc) a dispute letter, requesting to know why they are reporting what they are reporting, and that you dispute it as inaccurate, unverifiable, etc, whatever you feel is inaccurate. The FCRA requires this dispute to be SPECIFIC.

Ok I read through all the links and think I'm pretty well versed in it now, however I have a specific question on my situation, based on this post.

 

I disputed some lates dates, and the OC came back and made the lates seem even more recent. So my question is do I now have to dispute again with the CRA since the OC has not 'verified' this new more recent lates disputes, it's like new information was provided. And then when that's been done, then I can 623? Or can I 623 right now, ....

[Rebuilding2010]

self bump

[Jen23514]

ftc opinion on 623( private right to action:

http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/briefs/nelsont.pdf

[Erin42]

I've Googled and can't find my answer. Maybe I missed it when scanning this thread...

 

Is there a set time limit for the CAs to report as disputed? I'm in California, if that matters.

[Jen23514]

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/andersonbeatoletter.pdf

 

Does submitting a 623 dispute interfere with your C&D via your DV?

[BnkRptLsr]

I usually make my C&D a limited C&D in the DV letter...

 

something like "...cease communicating except when required by law or to provide the information I requested..." etc.

[yokem55]

This thread and links have been very helpful to me in preparing my own 623 dispute. Here is the letter I've written. I've already received the responses from Experian & Equifax regarding the CRA dispute, and TU deleted in the initial dispute. Any feedback on this would be appreciated.

Me

My Addy

My City, State Zip

SSN: 123-45-6789

 

October 27th, 2010

 

Short Bus Collection Agency

123 Foo Street

Bar, Baz 12345

 

RE: Account #xxxxxxxx

 

NOTICE OF DIRECT DISPUTE

 

This letter is a Notice of Direct Dispute with you, pursuant to FCRA 623(a)(8)(D), of the accuracy and integrity of information you have furnished to the credit reporting agencies Equifax and Experian.

So as to ensure my compliance with the requirements of a direct dispute as described under FCRA 623(a)(8)(D), and the enacting regulations that came into effect July 1st 2010, under 16 CFR--PART 660, I have included in this notice:

• Copies of the partial credit reports from Experian and Equifax which include the trade lines containing the information you are furnishing them (See attachment entitled “Identification of Specific Disputed Information”).
  
• A description of the basis of my dispute (as described below).
  
• And my supporting information and documentation for this dispute.

 

Basis of Dispute

I am specifically disputing my liability for this debt with regard to whether there is or has been identity theft or fraud against me in the creation of this debt. As you have not directly provided me any information with regard to the origin of this debt, I must base my supporting arguments and documentation on information inferred and implied from what you are reporting to credit reporting agencies.

 

Supporting Information and Documentation

• My dealings with the company you are reporting as the original creditor, “Hot Stuff Fuels” were on a pre-paid basis for delivery of heating fuel products to my residence when I was residing in Boo, CA.
  
• Experian is reporting that this tradeline is set to remain on file until September 20XX. This fall-off date implies that the date of first delinquency with regard to this debt with the original creditor was between March 200X and August 200X. This implies the provision of the product(s) and/or service(s) that incurred the debt occurred between January 200X and July 200X.
  
• This date range is after I had ceased to reside in Boo, CA, and no longer had any need of any products or services provided by Hot Stuff Fuels, this debt does not belong to me and instead belongs to the resident of the house at the time of delivery. This person's identity is unknown to me.
  
• I have attached documentation of proof of my new address during this January to August 200X time period.

 

Under the provisions of FCRA 623(a)(8)(E), you have the duty to review all of the information in this Notice of Dispute, to complete your investigation, and report back to me the results of your investigation, within 30 days of my Notice of Dispute.

 

On October 2nd 2010, I sent disputes to all three credit reporting agencies requesting that they conduct a re-investigation of the tradeline you are reporting. Experian and Equifax reported that that the information was “verified”.

 

As you have already assisted Experian and Equifax with the verification of this account, per your obligations under FCRA 623(b ), you must already have documentation in your possession sufficient to support the integrity, accuracy, and completeness, of the data you are furnishing. As such, there should be no additional burden on you to complete this investigation promptly and send to me the documentation supporting your position with regard to this account.

 

If you fail to fulfill your obligations under the FCRA 623(a) with regard to this dispute, I will file complaints with the Nevada Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission.

 

In addition, this failure will be construed and interpreted as direct evidence of your failure to fulfill your obligations with regard to FCRA 623(b ) in the October 2nd dispute with Equifax and Experian. Be advised that per Johnson v. Chase Manhattan, a data furnisher's failure to meet obligations under FCRA 623(b ) in the context of disputes initiated with credit reporting agencies, is privately actionable in court of law.

 

Your prompt reply in this matter is greatly appreciated

 

Sincerely

 

[drummer55]

great info. any other stories with the new law in place?

[pryan67]

bump....this is one of the most useful threads here...

[Jen23514]

updating thread with links:

 

First Ciruit confirms FCRA private right of action against furnishers of credit information

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=427759

 

using 623 dispute in your initial DV:

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=341108&st=80

[Jen23514]

You MUST be specific in your 623 dispute (read the FCRA for verification of this).

 

A request for reinvestigation without a dispute of information is not enough to trigger CRA’s duty

 

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=477355a9-721b-4c86-9898-a0105fb81dda

Gagliardi v. Equifax Info. Servs, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10634 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2011)

 

Facts: Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania ("Columbia"), Plainitff’s gas provider, terminated Plaintiff’s gas service for non-payment of past due invoices totaling $1,487.70. Columbia sent Plaintiff a denial letter stating that he failed to meet its credit guidelines based on a credit score obtained from Equifax and further stated that he was required to pay the past due amount plus an additional deposit and fees if he wanted to restore the gas service to his residence. Plaintiff filed the above referenced lawsuit against Columbia and Equifax on November 2, 2009. Plaintiff settled his claims with Columbia Gas and then filed an amended complaint against Equifax alleging violations of the RICO Act, the FCRA, and Pennsylvania state law. In response, Equifax filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.

 

# FCRA. When a consumer reporting agency (“CRA”) is notified pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(3) that information furnished to the CRA "is disputed by the consumer," 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(f) requires the CRA to "indicate that fact in each consumer report that includes the disputed information.” Thus, in order to establish that Equifax violated § 1681c(f),, Plaintiff needed to show (1) that Columbia furnished disputed information to Equifax; and (2) that Columbia notified Equifax that the information being furnished was in dispute. Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of either prong.

 

# FCRA. Section 1681d contains provisions governing requests for, and the preparation of, investigative consumer reports as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(e). Plaintiff provided no evidence to suggest that he was the subject of an investigative consumer report. The most that can be inferred from the letter he received from Columbia is that Equifax may have communicated factual information concerning Plaintiff’s credit score to Columbia. Plaintiff could not show that an investigative consumer report was created and therefore failed to establish a violation of § 1681d.

 

# FCRA. Section 1681e( requires a CRA preparing a consumer report to "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates." In order to establish an actionable violation of § 1681e(, Plaintiff must show that: (1) a consumer report prepared by Equifax contained inaccurate information about him; (2) the inaccuracy was attributable to Equifax's failure to "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information" contained in the consumer report; (3) he sustained an injury; and (4) his injury was caused by Equifax's inclusion of the inaccurate information in the consumer report. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement reached between Plaintiff and Equifax in a prior lawsuit, Plaintiff verified that his credit disclosure was true, accurate and complete as of March 2009. Further, Plaintiff testified in his deposition that he had not received any credit-based denial letters subsequent to Columbia’s letter. Plaintiff could not demonstrate that Equifax prepared a consumer report containing inaccurate information about him. Even if he were able to make such a showing, the Court held that he would be unable to establish that his injuries were caused by Equifax's conduct due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide any evidence that the Equifax report was the reason for Columbia's decision to terminate Plaintiff’s gas service.

 

# FCRA. Section 1681g requires a CRA, at the request of a consumer, to "clearly and accurately disclose" "[a]ll information in the consumer's file at the time of the request," including "[t]he sources of the information" and "[a] record of all inquiries received by the agency during the 1-year period preceding the request that identified the consumer in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that was not initiated by the consumer." Plaintiff alleged that Equifax violated § 1681g by failing to produce its alleged communications with Columbia. However, a representative from Equifax testified that Equifax had no record of inquiries into Plaintiff’s credit history initiated by Columbia. The Court held that Equifax is not legally required (and cannot be expected) to disclose information that does not exist.

 

# FCRA. Section 1681h requires CRAs to retain "trained personnel" possessing the knowledge necessary to explain the information that is disclosed to consumers. Plaintiff claimed that Equifax violated § 1681h because of the alleged difficulties Plaintiff experienced while trying to speak directly with Equifax personnel by telephone. Even though Equifax provided a phone number to Plaintiff to use if he had questions about his credit disclosure, Plaintiff obtained and used a different phone number. The Court held that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Equifax violated § 1681h© because Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that he contacted the trained personnel employed by Equifax.

 

# FCRA. Plaintiff alleged that Equifax failed to reinvestigate dispute credit information under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). A CRA has no statutory duty to conduct a reinvestigation prior to being notified that information contained in a consumer's credit file is disputed. Plaintiff never disputed the completeness or accuracy of an item of information contained in his credit file. Instead, he simply asked Equifax to reinvestigate its records in order to determine whether Columbia was mistaken regarding the involvement of Equifax in the decision to terminate his gas service. The Court held that since Plaintiff could not show that he disputed an item of information contained in his credit file, he could not establish that Equifax had a duty to reinvestigate.

[futurehomeowner?]

bumpity bump

[Credit Tech]

Not sure if this thread is still active due to its age, but I'd like to repopen the discussion either here or in a new thread.

 

I disputed directly with an OC, becuase they held 5+ accounts I wanted them to fix with all 3 CRA's. Per PsychDoc transcripts, I was following his logic of disputing directly with the OC if possible, because then you can get all 3 reports fixed at once and usually for good. Vs. a dispute with the CRA that you have to do with each one, and then hope it stays and doesn't get changed back later down the road.

 

I disputed in November of 2012 with the OC via email, and they replied via email and said they would resolve the issue in my favor. This was on one account specifically. They did fix that one account, with one CRA, but then reported a new 30 day late later that month after this dispute time period had past.

 

I recently realized they did this, and more carefully examined all my reports, and found several more errors, and some areas that were borderline that I was hoping for some good will on.

 

So I forwarded the email back to the OC showing where they agreed to show this account as open and on time and asked why it was still showing a late payment. I also introduced the other disputed/request for verification items that I had just found. The OC responded within 2 days via email and said they'd need about a week to research it.

 

I then found even more specific information and replied to the email again with more questions, and a helping hand in a sense of why the accounts should be updated. Again, this has been a good working relationship/good will situation so I have been trying to be helpful.

 

I got a mailed (post office, regular mail) response a few days later. The OC addressed almost all of my concerns in some way. I believe they were trying to be helpful, however they continued to make some mistakes both in their logic of how they should report, and in going beyond what I asked them to correct and sending more info to the CRAs on other accounts that I did not ask them to. They also reported new erroneous info, like an account I never had, and reporting it as a transferred in house account. And they verified incorrect status dates to the CRAs to be updated as a result of this verification.

 

Some of the worst issues this latest update they sent to all 3 CRAs are:

1. A derogatory TL will now remain on my report 3 more years than it was supposed to because they entered the wrong status date

2. They are hitting me twice with the same derog on the same account, by showing it 30 days late on one TL, and then created a second TL with no payment history but listing it as IIB. This is for the same balance and account!

3. They updated the on time account with all 3 CRAs as on time, but erroneously listed a Date of First Delinquency date, and did not use the right remove from BK indicator to show the account as open, on time, and not IIB.

 

They sent me proof of all of this verification (not proof of my accounts, or that they were right, rather proof of the CRA update forms they filed with the CRAs). Basically they sent me a two page letter, explaining their good will, and what they did to update my accounts with the CRAs. Then there are 7 additional pages, two pages are copies of my EX report before they submitted changes, with handwritten notes of what they were going to do to each. A one page screen print of their internal account history on one account in dispute. And the other pages were various forms of CRA update forms using the "Metro 2" coding showing me exactly what data they asked the CRAs to update. On these update forms, there are errors!! New ones!

 

So I guess I could really use some help on what my next steps are here. Do I continue the good will process and tell the OC they really messed a few things up and ask for them to fix? Or do I dispute with the CRAs directly? Both?

 

Are there 623 actionable items here?

 

Sorry to be longwinded, just trying to give you info you need to advise.

 

[phoenixisrising]

From what I gather, you have only sought resolution with the OC where results have basically created a situation much worse for you. Have you at all sent a letter to the CRA to resolve? You have different sets of protections and rights that I believe would not be fully implemented if you have not tried to go to the CRA - then again, it all depends on how much $$ is at stake.

 

The guidelines for email vary from that if the post office which may be why most legal business included email correspondence .

 

Simply put you may have a 623 depending on what you wrote to them and the inaccuracies. IMO to make full use if the law, you MUST include the CRA in the dispute process.

Edited May 13, 2013 by phoenixisrising

[Credit Tech]

From what I gather, you have only sought resolution with the OC where results have basically created a situation much worse for you. Have you at all sent a letter to the CRA to resolve? You have different sets of protections and rights that I believe would not be fully implemented if you have not tried to go to the CRA - then again, it all depends on how much $$ is at stake.

 

The guidelines for email vary from that if the post office which may be why most legal business included email correspondence .

 

Simply put you may have a 623 depending on what you wrote to them and the inaccuracies. IMO to make full use if the law, you MUST include the CRA in the dispute process.

Thank you for your response!

 

As far as damages to me, the following has recently occurred, of which I don't know what is actionable or worth pursuing:

1. The OC had reported a 30 day late on an open reporting auto loan less than 6 months ago, after they told me they would always be reporting the account on time. I recently applied for car loans with 3 lenders and got a denial, a rate that was unfavorable, and ended up accepting the third scenario that was the best rate available to me, but higher than what could have been offered to me if this recent late wasn't bringing down my score.

2. At the same with the CU that gave me the new car loan, I opened a new Visa Card. I asked for 5k limit, was approved for $500. Asked for recon and got $1500. Again likely would be higher if my report were correct. They told me my EX score was 692, and 700 was the cutoff for better rates and CL.

3. Asked for CLI through Capital One EO process. Asked for approximately 10k in new line divided between two cards, was only approved for $1,000 divided between two cards.

 

I did initiate some of the dispute with some of the CRAs, both in November 2012 and in April of this year. I asked one CRA to remove the IIB indicator on the on time auto loan. Hopefully to pave the way for the OC to remove the 30 day late that was showing and then show it as an open on time account to help my history. The CRA deleted the account entirely as a result of my dispute just yesterday! My dispute reason was "Not IIB" and "Not Closed". Why they deleted I don't know. In the meantime, the OC did submit an update to the CRAs saying the account is open and on time. Not sure if this will be suppressed now that CRA deleted the TL, or if it will pop back on?

 

In November, I also disputed one of the other accounts with CRA too. So there is some history of disputing/verifying with both CRA and OC.

 

However, also some of the other issues are brand new, as a result of the OC sending a bad update last week. I believe I have to give it a few days and see what the CRAs actually do with this info and how it reports. I did already see the issue on the one account where they made my status 3 years fresher, keeping the account on 3 years too long. This account has a 30 day late showing, revolving CC, that was included in my BK. The OC has said they are not removing the 30 day late, but now that they reported an incorrect status date on the account, I'm not sure which method to use for deletion.

 

Some of this may not be 623 and may just be ammunition for another method where an OC verifies incorrect info to the CRA. I'm still too new to understand which route I should be pursuing here.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Credit Tech

[phoenixisrising]

 

From what I gather, you have only sought resolution with the OC where results have basically created a situation much worse for you. Have you at all sent a letter to the CRA to resolve? You have different sets of protections and rights that I believe would not be fully implemented if you have not tried to go to the CRA - then again, it all depends on how much $$ is at stake.

 

The guidelines for email vary from that if the post office which may be why most legal business included email correspondence .

 

Simply put you may have a 623 depending on what you wrote to them and the inaccuracies. IMO to make full use if the law, you MUST include the CRA in the dispute process.

Thank you for your response!

 

As far as damages to me, the following has recently occurred, of which I don't know what is actionable or worth pursuing:

1. The OC had reported a 30 day late on an open reporting auto loan less than 6 months ago, after they told me they would always be reporting the account on time. I recently applied for car loans with 3 lenders and got a denial, a rate that was unfavorable, and ended up accepting the third scenario that was the best rate available to me, but higher than what could have been offered to me if this recent late wasn't bringing down my score.

2. At the same with the CU that gave me the new car loan, I opened a new Visa Card. I asked for 5k limit, was approved for $500. Asked for recon and got $1500. Again likely would be higher if my report were correct. They told me my EX score was 692, and 700 was the cutoff for better rates and CL.

3. Asked for CLI through Capital One EO process. Asked for approximately 10k in new line divided between two cards, was only approved for $1,000 divided between two cards.

 

I did initiate some of the dispute with some of the CRAs, both in November 2012 and in April of this year. I asked one CRA to remove the IIB indicator on the on time auto loan. Hopefully to pave the way for the OC to remove the 30 day late that was showing and then show it as an open on time account to help my history. The CRA deleted the account entirely as a result of my dispute just yesterday! My dispute reason was "Not IIB" and "Not Closed". Why they deleted I don't know. In the meantime, the OC did submit an update to the CRAs saying the account is open and on time. Not sure if this will be suppressed now that CRA deleted the TL, or if it will pop back on?

 

In November, I also disputed one of the other accounts with CRA too. So there is some history of disputing/verifying with both CRA and OC.

 

However, also some of the other issues are brand new, as a result of the OC sending a bad update last week. I believe I have to give it a few days and see what the CRAs actually do with this info and how it reports. I did already see the issue on the one account where they made my status 3 years fresher, keeping the account on 3 years too long. This account has a 30 day late showing, revolving CC, that was included in my BK. The OC has said they are not removing the 30 day late, but now that they reported an incorrect status date on the account, I'm not sure which method to use for deletion.

 

Some of this may not be 623 and may just be ammunition for another method where an OC verifies incorrect info to the CRA. I'm still too new to understand which route I should be pursuing here.

Here's a helpful, short pdf giving you the gist of 623 http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/07/040709fcraappxg.pdf Good Luck.

 

EDIT: Also, for the 623 letter, be sure to request an 'investigation' of the dispute.

Edited May 16, 2013 by phoenixisrising