My version of the 1-2punch, invoking the FCRA and FDCPA

[Guest grendel]

Jen maybe you can help me on my next step.I used a form of the letter in the first page.Made it fit my situation with Pinnacle.Wrote the letter put it in an envelope and was going to mail it when I got back from a trip.My wife saw it sent it off CMRR. Pinnacle deleted from Equ and TU.Experian updated. Now its 40 days later I have the green card. My question is is it to late to mail the dispute to Experian using the second part of the punch. Or should I try to dispute that Pinnacle didnt answer the first DV.

 

I am not Jen, but I've had a hand or three in deletions.

 

I would send a follow up to Pinnacle, stating they deleted from two, the law requires all three. They can't validate the debt as yours, reporting the debt or responding to the CRA is continued collection activity. Then dispute with Experian, as they will probably "verify"... you could then sue Experian, but Pinnacle will probably delete it.

Thanks Im not complaining about it being deleted from 2.Was looking for the best way to get it off Experian.I appreciate your advice.Thanks Jim

 

 

I know you're not complaining about the deletes... nor do my letters. They're documenting it, so they can't be added back on

 

You're also letting the CA know they're responsible for what they report and that you know and will defend your rights.

 

It also traps the CRA, as they really don't investigate as they should.

Edited August 18, 2008 by grendel

[jim5518]

Jen maybe you can help me on my next step.I used a form of the letter in the first page.Made it fit my situation with Pinnacle.Wrote the letter put it in an envelope and was going to mail it when I got back from a trip.My wife saw it sent it off CMRR. Pinnacle deleted from Equ and TU.Experian updated. Now its 40 days later I have the green card. My question is is it to late to mail the dispute to Experian using the second part of the punch. Or should I try to dispute that Pinnacle didnt answer the first DV.

 

I am not Jen, but I've had a hand or three in deletions.

 

I would send a follow up to Pinnacle, stating they deleted from two, the law requires all three. They can't validate the debt as yours, reporting the debt or responding to the CRA is continued collection activity. Then dispute with Experian, as they will probably "verify"... you could then sue Experian, but Pinnacle will probably delete it.

Thanks Im not complaining about it being deleted from 2.Was looking for the best way to get it off Experian.I appreciate your advice.Thanks Jim

 

 

I know you're not complaining about the deletes... nor do my letters. They're documenting it, so they can't be added back on

 

You're also letting the CA know they're responsible for what they report and that you know and will defend your rights.

 

It also traps the CRA, as they really don't investigate as they should.

Thank you very much for your time and advice.Working on the letter now.Last one I have so Ill be glad that the rebuilding is almost over. Thanks Jim

[Jen23514]

i was away, but looks like you got good advice here

[jim5518]

JEN and Grendel THANKS THANKS last baddie deleted.Pinnacle sent letter recieved today they are deleting from EXP. Wow this thread should be a sticky.

[Jen23514]

JEN and Grendel THANKS THANKS last baddie deleted.Pinnacle sent letter recieved today they are deleting from EXP. Wow this thread should be a sticky.

 

 

/does the victory dance...

 

:lol: :lol:

 

I'm happy for you!

[Guest grendel]

JEN and Grendel THANKS THANKS last baddie deleted.Pinnacle sent letter recieved today they are deleting from EXP. Wow this thread should be a sticky.

Grats, glad I could help.

[Jen23514]

ttt

[Guest grendel]

BTW, the 1-2 Punch always invoked the FCRA and FDCPA...

 

It doesn't have to now

[Jen23514]

BTW, the 1-2 Punch always invoked the FCRA and FDCPA...

 

It doesn't have to now

 

in retrospect, could have used a different wording...

 

I just meant in the dispute with the CA (of course the CRA dispute always had to do with the FCRA). Most people were doing a simple 2 line DV, and I guess I was arguing that attacking them as a DF in addition to their normal dispute gave the DV more teeth.

 

Didn't mean to hijack your term.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Jen23514

[Guest grendel]

BTW, the 1-2 Punch always invoked the FCRA and FDCPA...

 

It doesn't have to now

 

in retrospect, could have used a different wording...

 

I just meant in the dispute with the CA (of course the CRA dispute always had to do with the FCRA). Most people were doing a simple 2 line DV, and I guess I was arguing that attacking them as a DF in addition to their normal dispute gave the DV more teeth.

 

Didn't mean to hijack your term.

 

 

No hijack at all and it's hardly my term

 

Now the Furnisher's dispute can be all FCRA as well. I am noodling more on this.

[Jen23514]

BTW, the 1-2 Punch always invoked the FCRA and FDCPA...

 

It doesn't have to now

 

in retrospect, could have used a different wording...

 

I just meant in the dispute with the CA (of course the CRA dispute always had to do with the FCRA). Most people were doing a simple 2 line DV, and I guess I was arguing that attacking them as a DF in addition to their normal dispute gave the DV more teeth.

 

Didn't mean to hijack your term.

 

 

No hijack at all and it's hardly my term

 

Now the Furnisher's dispute can be all FCRA as well. I am noodling more on this.

 

I saw that.... you did a much better explanation than I did.

 

 

Here's the issues I see with why I thought DVs could use more bite.

 

1. a lot of DVs (in my case) were past the 30 day window and had been reporting for awhile.

2. CAs are not required to respond to a DV

3. There is no clear cut definition of what validation is. My standard has been, "what would a judge think?"

4. we can ask them to validate or delete, but there is no legal requirement to do so

5. They can take as long as they want to get the proof you requested in your DV and send it to you a year later and it is legal and acceptable.

 

BUT, after reading and rereading the FCRA... I found that as a DF, there are MUCH stricter requirements (and it is actionable, whereas "not responding to my DV" is not).

1. they must investigate your claim

2. there is a time frame for them to do so (30 days) AND they are required to report the results to CRAs

3. it is required that the TL be accurate or deleted.

 

so, in my first DV I always attack them both ways.

 

I dispute per the FDCPA but I'm also sure to be specific (which is what the FCRA requires) of what I am disputing about the way they report.

[cousin eddie]

Can I sue an OC for knowingly furnishing incorrect data? I have been back and forth with an OC for the last several months and they just recently updated with information that is an outright lie. Do I have any recourse with these lying scumbags. I read through the FCRA and I was sure I was going to be able to fix this by sueing the OC if I had to. After reading this thread it sounds like I have no chance to force them to report accurately.

[Jen23514]

make sure the section you want to sue under is actionable by consumers.

[Guest grendel]

Can I sue an OC for knowingly furnishing incorrect data? I have been back and forth with an OC for the last several months and they just recently updated with information that is an outright lie. Do I have any recourse with these lying scumbags. I read through the FCRA and I was sure I was going to be able to fix this by sueing the OC if I had to. After reading this thread it sounds like I have no chance to force them to report accurately.

yes, the FCRA has provisions for accurate data and suing. Don't go off half cocked, and do your research.

 

With that said, what's the section of the FCRA you're going to sue for?

[Jen23514]

not to mention being about to prove willful negligence

[cousin eddie]

It would be under section 623, they knowingly updated an October 06 Foreclosure to Sept 08. They also added 120 day lates on the same account on July 08. They are stopping me from getting my mortgage approved.

[Guest grendel]

It would be under section 623, they knowingly updated an October 06 Foreclosure to Sept 08. They also added 120 day lates on the same account on July 08. They are stopping me from getting my mortgage approved.

Sounds like you got it. So, when you asked for an investigation, what did you specifically ask for?

 

The FACTA mods call it out...

[cousin eddie]

I disputed the tradeline in its entirety, they came back and asked for specifics and I replied the same except I spelled it out a little more. Saying basically that everything they were reporting was inaccurate. The next letter from them said my info had been purged from their system and they needed specifics. I replied that I was unsure how they could continue to update my reports when no information was available to them. That's when they started reporting the very recent 120 day lates and the Foreclosure. They just keep changing what they furnish and this time they went over the line.

[Guest grendel]

I disputed the tradeline in its entirety, they came back and asked for specifics and I replied the same except I spelled it out a little more. Saying basically that everything they were reporting was inaccurate. The next letter from them said my info had been purged from their system and they needed specifics. I replied that I was unsure how they could continue to update my reports when no information was available to them. That's when they started reporting the very recent 120 day lates and the Foreclosure. They just keep changing what they furnish and this time they went over the line.

 

 

So, what did the CRA say, when you hit them with an investigation? Did you follow up with a procedural request, with the Furnisher's letter saying they would purge?

 

Sounds like in my experience that the CRA is the one screwing up.

 

Also, did you pull your files directly from the CRA?

[cousin eddie]

The CRA's keep verifying, or as they call it "updated information". I didn't follow up because the OC said they had purged my info from their system and I didn't think the CRA's would accept it. Are you thinking that is enough to have the bureau's delete?

 

Yes I took all the information from recent reports.

[Guest grendel]

The CRA's keep verifying, or as they call it "updated information". I didn't follow up because the OC said they had purged my info from their system and I didn't think the CRA's would accept it. Are you thinking that is enough to have the bureau's delete?

 

Yes I took all the information from recent reports.

 

 

Well, there is precedence that they have to accept that sort of information. It doesn't mean they always do. I would send a procedural request as an attempt to verify their (the CRA's) findings. Then put the final nail in the coffin by sending them the Furnisher's statement...

 

Cover every reasonable angle.

[cousin eddie]

That my friend is what I will do, thank you very much for all of your help grendel. I will get a letter written up today. You don't know how much I appreciate this!

[Guest grendel]

That my friend is what I will do, thank you very much for all of your help grendel. I will get a letter written up today. You don't know how much I appreciate this!

 

 

My pleasure.

 

They will "re-investigate", even though they're supposed to accept your proof as fact. TransUnion's been nailed for it before. Typically, it's deleted but if it's not, be prepared to sue.

[Jen23514]

Well, there is precedence that they have to accept that sort of information. It doesn't mean they always do. I would send a procedural request as an attempt to verify their (the CRA's) findings. Then put the final nail in the coffin by sending them the Furnisher's statement...

 

Cover every reasonable angle.

 

of the dozen or more PRs i've sent, I've never received an adequate response.

 

I should sue.

[Guest grendel]

Well, there is precedence that they have to accept that sort of information. It doesn't mean they always do. I would send a procedural request as an attempt to verify their (the CRA's) findings. Then put the final nail in the coffin by sending them the Furnisher's statement...

 

Cover every reasonable angle.

 

of the dozen or more PRs i've sent, I've never received an adequate response.

 

I should sue.

 

 

Heh, well it's documenting that they don't actually do a valid investigation. I AM suing. I walk the talk here.