Jump to content

Lian

Members
  • Content Count

    223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Once information has been deleted as the result of a dispute, then the reinsertion provisions of FCRA 611(a)(5)( kick in. If information was deleted as a result of a dispute, any party requesting its reinsertion must submit to the CRA a "certification of accuracy of the information," certifying that, notwithstanding its prior deletion, the information seeking to be reinserted is nonetheless "complete and accurate." It is the responsibility of the CRA to ensure that such a certification has been provided with the information. If the CRA rules favorably on the request, then they are required to provide notice to the consumer within 5 business days of the date of their reinsertion of the information into the consumer's credit file.
  2. Possibly. They have permissible pull authority. They may want to see if, and how much, you are currently paying others.
  3. They have violated FDCPA 809(. The day they received your DV, they were under an automatic cease collection bar. Their response is a violation of that bar. Living in Texas, they have a state statutory requriement to respond to your DV within 30 days.
  4. My understanding is that all accounts appearing in the consumer's credit file, regardless of open or closed status, count equally in the calculation of AAOA. Easy to determine just by taking your CR and running the calculation.
  5. Lian

    HELOC

    Up to a point. A HELOC is a revolving line of credit, and is scored as such unless it exceeds a certain value, which I think is around $35K. Above the level it is not scored as part of revolving util, but treated like an installment line of credit, which has much lower impact.
  6. Mimimum compliance with debt validation is primarily an issue to be determined by the courts, as section 809( does not specifically define what constitues adequate verifcation and validation. Most jurisdictions have established the "bare-bones" interpretation, which requires only that the debt collector state that they have contacted the creditor and obtain confirmation of the debt, and provide you the current amount owed. Under that interpretation, they have in fact provided more than required. To contest adequacy of validation, it is necessary to know the binding appellate precedent in your jurisdiction, as applied to the specifics of your case. No simple answer to any adequacy of validation question.
  7. Debt collectors do not and cannot report 120-day lates. You dont have an account with them, dont receive billing statements from them with a due date, and thus have no date upon which to base ANY delinquency in payment to a debt collector. CRA reporting codes made available to debt collectors for their reporting of collections do not even include codes for reporting monthly delinquencies. The debt collector did not report it....... The problem probably arises due to an improperly formatted commercial credit report that you are viewing. Many commercial credit reports improperly mix dates and events reported by OCs under headings related to collections, and visa-versa. They lead to the false impression that an item was reported by, for example, a debt collector, when it in fact was not.
  8. Both the charge-off and collection will cease inclusion in your CR after 7 years plus 180 days from the DOFD on the OC account, not any DOLA. If a charge-off was taken in May 2007, chances are good that the first delinquency on the OC account was back in 2006, leading to an expected CR exclusion date near the end of 2013. If the debt collector has properly been assigned collector authority, and I see no reason to question that, then they have the authority to report their collection to the CRA. The date reported by a debt collector as the open date for their collection is the date of their assignment of collection authority. Thus, I see nothing improper in their reporting a date that precedes the date they actually reported to the CRA. The date of their collection authority does not affect when their collection must be excluded from your CR. That is based SOLELY on the DOFD on the OC account. So it really has little significance. The fact of a charge-off is totally immaterial to issues relating to continued collection of the debt. You can certainly DV. Issues that might be included in your DV, if they are present, would be any failure on theri part to have sent you timely dunning notice within 5 days of intial communication with you. The DV process relates to debt collection practices issues, not disputes over the accuracy of items reported to your CR, so I would not encumber any DV letter with credit reporting dispute matters. If you wish to pursue those, the proper course is to file a dispute under the FCRA,
  9. The reinsertion of information in a consumer credit file after its previous deletion as the result of a dispute of the information is regulated by FCRA 611(a)(5)(. The essential part of this section of the statute is that it applies only to information that was deleted after a CRA reinvestigation provided the consumer a finding that the disputed information was inaccurate, incomplete, or could not be verified. Upon such a finding, the CRA is thereafter precluded from reinserting the disputed information unless the party reporting the information provides the CRA with a certification tht the information is complete and accurate. If the CRA accepts such a certification, and reinserts the information, they are required to provide notice to the consumer of its reinsertion with 5 days after its reinsertion. Was their a conclusive finding in the prior dispute of the incompleteness, inaccuracy, or unverifiability of the information? If so, then they must have provided a certification of accuracy to get it reinserted, and the CRA must have notified you of its acceptance of the reinsertion.
  10. Interesting. I, too, would like to see how this pans out. They are apparently a provider of information, analytics and business services and do not assert to be a credit bureau. However, it appears to me that they may already qualify as a CRA under the statute. FCRA 603 (f) defines a credit reporting agency to mean "an person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports." If they issue reports that contain information that is considered inaccurate or incomplete by the consumer, it would appear to me that they would be subject to the reinvestigation of any consumer disputes pertaining to the information under the established FCRA 611(a) dispute process. I would expect that they might soon find themselves embroiled in consumer disputes over the information they compile and report, and an obligation to reinvestigate them under FCRA 611(a)(1).
  11. Permissible pull authority for a debt collector to request your CR is based on FCRA 604(a)(3)(A), which sets as a permissible purpose the use of your CR in connection with collection of an account of the consumer. It is not conditioned upon prior communication of a dunning notice, or reporting their collection activity to a CRA. However, pulling your CR could arguably be considered as an "initial communiction with the consumer," in the same manner that actually reporting their collection activity to a a CRA is considered an "initial communication" that triggers their obligation under FDCPA 809(a) to have sent you dunning notice within 5 days of any intitial communication. You can shut down any and all collection activities by them by simply sending them a DV request. That would at least prevent any further actions on their part until such time as they provide you adequate debt validation. You can send a DV request at any time you become aware of a debt collector. It is not necessary to wait for a collection (dunning) notice.
  12. First, as to sending multiple disputes to a CRA in a single letter, I would not recommend it. Each individual dispute must be forwarded by the CRA to the furnisher of the disputed information for their investigation and reply back to the CRA. Lumping multiple, unrelated disputes in a single letter requires the CRA to create a separate e-OSCAR dispute form for forwarding to the furnisher. You are relying on a clerk to keep them all straight, and determine what information and arguments relate to each. Unless your goal is to create confusion at the CRA, and possible referral problems, I would not do it. Each "dispute" is a separate assertion of inaccuracy that applies to separate credit report information, and goes to a separate furnisher of the disputed information. Second, as to sending essentially the same dispute to each CRA where the disputed information was reported, this is not always necessary. It is true that the CRAs dont provide their investigation results to the other CRAs, but under FCRA 623( b )(1)(D), if the furnisher of disputed information finds the information to have been incomplete, inaccurate, or unverifiable, the FURNISHER is required to report those results to each CRA to which they have furnished the information, and not just the CRA from which they obtained the dispute referral. So if you prevail, resolution with each of the CRAs is required. Third, all of this confusion can be avoided by simply disputing directly with the furnisher of the information under the direct dispute process, and avoid the multiple CRA issues. Taking the CRAs out of the process has the additioanal advantage of avoiding the sanitation of your disputes via the CRA e-OSCAR process, and ensuring that all documentation in support of your dispute is received, in full, by the furnisher. Upon resolution of a direct dispute, the furnisher is similarly required to report any needed corrections or deletions to each CRA to which they have reported the disputed information.
  13. The issue is verification of accuracy of credit reporting, not debt validation. The FCRA does not require one to provide documentary evidence of the accuracy of their reporting under the dispute processes. It only requires them to provide a finding, and convey it to you. Your protection against inadequate investigation of a dispute and/or incorrection verification resides with the courts. If the issue ever gets before the court, they will then be required during the discovery process to provide any relevant documentary evidence. If, in that process, it is found that their investigation was inadequate of that their finding was knowingly not based on the facts, you have cause of action agaisnt them for willful violation of the FCRA.
  14. You are entitled, after receiving the results of an investigation from a CRA, to then require them to provide "a description of the procedures used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information." FCRA 611(a)(6)((iii) and 611(a)(7). REsponse to such requests must be provided within 15 days. They are commonly called "method of verification," or "MOV" requests. You additionally have the right, under FCRA 609(a)(1), to request any information of record in your credit file from the CRA, and the right under FCRA 609(a)(2) to request the name of the party who provided the information to them. Requests under section 609(a) require a fee of $11.00 and proof of your identity. Armed with those two provisions of the statute, you can determine whether the CRA properly investigated your dispute. Specifically, the CRA was required to have forwarded your dispute to the party who reported the disputed information to them (it is often a private firm who researches public records). FCRA 611(a)(2)(. That party was then required, under FCRA 623((1)(D) to have reported the results of their investigation of your dispute back to the CRA. YOu can then, with knowledge of who reported it, determine whether the CRA properly complied with their statutory obligations. The CRA has that information, and is required to provide it to you.
  15. Responsibillity for assuring exclusion of the collection from your CR after 7 years plus 180-days from the reported DOFD on the OC account ultimately resides with the CRA. It is not the continued reporting of the collection that is at issue, it is the continued inclusion of the collection in your CR. The FCRA places NO limitations on how long a party, be they a creditor or debt collector, may continue to report accurate information to a CRA. They can continue to report after the CR exclusion period has expired. It is the responsibility of the CRA to monitor the DOFD, and therafter block any information from inclusion in your CR. The CRA can only rely, in making its determination of CR exclusion, on the accuracy of the reported DOFD. The DOFD is required under section 623(a)(5) to be reported to the CRA within 90 days after a charge-off or collection. That date is separately stored in the consumer's credit file as the "FCRA Compliance Date/Date of First Delinquency." If the OC or the debt collector reported an inaccurate DOFD, the fault would not reside with the CRA. However, if the reported DOFD has passed the CR exclusion period, then the CRA is the party at fault for violation of FCRA 605(a)(4). If the DOFD of record in the consumer's credit file is inaccurate, then recourse is to file a dispute as to the accuracy of that reporting. However, if the reported DOFD is not the issue, but rather the continued inclusion of the collection in the consumer's credit file after the exclusion date, the recourse is not to dispute the accuracy of credit reporting. It is to file a complaint with the CRA for their violation of FCRA 605(a)(4). All of that is dependent upon (a) knowing what the actual reported DOFD is in your credit file, and ( comparison of that reported date with the your account records. That tells you who is responsible for continuance of a collection in your credit report after what you consider to be the mandated CR exclusion date. If you dont have evidence of that one, critical date reported to the CRA (and most commercial credit reports dont provide that specific date), you can get it directly from the CRA by sending them a request for information under FCRA 609(a)(1).

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines