E-Oscar and Donald Trump's Hairpiece

[motivatedfocus]

Today I spent nearly an hour on the phone with the "Credit and Collections Compliance Officer" for a creditor/data furnisher discussing in depth the procedures used for an "Automated Consumer Dispute Verification" through E-oscar and other issue specifically related to my situation.

 

She explained some things to me that I should be surprised by...but am not. This organization services and reports many thousands of consumers and has for many years...and the Credit/Collections Compliance Officer outlined systemic violations on the parts of the CRAs and the Data Furnisher that, according to this individual, are standard procedure.

 

Many of you have probably sent disputes to Equifax and received a verification that had nothing to do with your dispute. You may dispute an account as "This account contains incomplete and/or inaccurate information including the date of last activity, date of first delinquency..."

 

And you get back...

 

>>> We have researched the credit account. Account # - ****** The results are: Equifax verified that this item belongs to you. If you have additional questions about this item please contact: BLAH BLAH BLAH

 

Many times the answer from the CRA does not even address the actual dispute and proves the item was not investigated adequately.

 

The reason is, through E-oscar, the electronic communication received by the data furnisher, although it is required by law to do so, "NEVER" includes the relevant issues/the reasons you gave for the dispute. According to this individual...the communication sent by the CRA states something general like "Verify Account Is Reported Correctly." No other communication is ever made.

 

According to this individual, the communication the Data Furnisher receives from the CRAs, NEVER even includes the woefully inadequate info from the stupid CRA codes, or anything even close to resembling the actual/specific reasons a consumer gives for a dispute.

 

I'm inclined to believe that the Credit Reporting Agencies hire deformed lepers who, due to their lack of fingers , cannot type and simply punch a giant red drool-covered button with their nubs to send off "Verify Account Is Reported Correctly" to data furnishers.

 

The individual said that when the Data Furnisher receives the ACDV they simply look at the same information they sent and make certain the social security number, account # and address match the information they keep. They do this by looking at the information the same data they sent and KEEP in the form they fill out to send info to the CRAs through E-oscar.

 

It's like saying, "There it is. It must be right, because that is what we sent. I know it is what we sent because it matches what they sent back which is what we sent. I know this because I'm simply looking at what we sent, which is what they sent back. Yup, it's verified."

 

In other words, the Data Furnisher just looks at the electronic form they fill out that sends the information to the CRAs and that is how they "verify." Nobody is doing their jobs.

The E-Oscar Dance

 

*** Please Note: "Color Photo of Donald Trump's hairpiece" represents the exact information reported through E-Oscar by Data Furnisher

Data Furnisher Reports Through E-Oscar:

"Color photo of Donald Trump's hairpiece"

 

CRAs All Report:

"Black and White Photo of Donald Trump's hairpiece"

 

Consumer Sends Disputes to CRAs:

"To be complete and accurate this tradeline must include the documentary I made about the trials and tribulations of a family of lice during the Rosie O'Donnell bikini waxing incident . This account is inaccurate and/or incomplete. Please delete."

 

Data Furnisher Receives From CRAs:

The same,previously sent Color photo of Donald Trump's hairpiece the data furnisher reported and a message saying "Verify Account Is Reported Correctly"

 

Data Furnisher Sends Back:

"Verified"

 

CRAs Receive:

"Verified"

 

CRAs All Report:

Black and white photo of Donad Trump's hairpiece- verified on "......"

Consumer Receives:

>>> We have researched the credit account. Account # - ****** The results are: Equifax verified that this is not a photo of William Shatner's hairpiece. If you have additional questions about this item please contact: BLAH BLAH BLAH

 

Consumer Thinks: I had no idea Shatner even wore a hairpiece. My crotch itches. Did I send my dispute to Equifax or The Hair Club for Men? I need a lawyer.

 

I'm VERY happy I recorded the call.

Edited March 11, 2009 by motivatedfocus

[jack1212]

I still wish Donald would have gotten his head shaved bald at wrestlemania 23 Instead of Vince.

 

 

And yep, E-OSCAR=E-SCREWED.

 

Roll the dice again and hope we get lucky.

 

 

Jack

[motivatedfocus]

Jack, I don't need to...they agreed to delete.

 

I'm just wondering what I should do with this recorded call. As this has been an issue I've been trying to resolve for years, I'm thinking about talking to a lawyer. Things were completely mishandled, the FCRA wasn't followed, and THIS IS WRONG.

 

With this item gone, my credit is now/or will be as soon as the delete goes through...completely free of negative items, but I'm NOT SATISFIED. This has gone on for years, I wasted many hours, and I have REAL damages.

[jack1212]

As long as the state recording laws, etc were proper, it wont hurt to ask around.

[motivatedfocus]

Recordings were 100% proper.

[jack1212]

Did they spill any beans as to how your specific account/issues were handled?

[motivatedfocus]

Yes.

 

I asked questions...she answered.

 

What information did you look at?

 

How did you verify?

 

What is this date?

 

You don't have that information?

 

What exactly was the communication you received from the credit reporting agencies?

 

Communication from the CRAs didn't have any of the details of my dispute?

 

What did it say again?

 

Do you have record of what the communication from the CRAs communicated?

 

How long do you keep that?

 

Who verified this information?

 

Is this typical?

 

And on and on...for 45 minutes.

 

I'm really surprised she answered ANY of it.

[jack1212]

Wow!

 

You may have a better case than i thought. I def be shopping tommorrow.

[motivatedfocus]

It was like pulling back the curtain, finding that the great and powerful Oz is just a midget...I didn't even have to threaten to take away his booster seat...he just answered all my questions.

 

Where do those flying monkeys come from?

 

Are you aware of the Freudian significance of "The Lollipop Gang?"

 

How much does the Good Witch of The North charge for an hour of her time?

Edited March 11, 2009 by motivatedfocus

[jack1212]

Still interested in this.

 

Bumps for second shift.

[hegemony]

e-oscar is nothing more than a clearing house.

[motivatedfocus]

E-oscar is the system through which the Data Furnishers and CRAs communicate. I understand that this is not always the exclusive method...but I'd venture the vast majority of communication is done through e-oscar. I'm going to talk to my attorney regarding their FCRA responsibility and whether or not e-oscar has a responsibility to communicate in a 100% accurate manner all the information given to the CRAs by the consumer.

 

How many times have you heard of people disputing something from a single positive account to one CRA...that ONE CRA just deletes...information is sent through e-oscar and all CRAs delete? The consumer then attempts to get the data furnisher to "re-report." If they are lucky enough to get the data furnisher to agree to "re-report" the CRAs almost alway REFUSE to report the positive tradeline again. Why? Profit? Error in the system? In their risk/reward models the potential litigation and penalties aren't enough of a factor compared to the profits attained by reporting incorrectly?

 

It serves ALL of their best interests to report incorrectly as long as the penalties for breaking the law don't exceed the profits made by keeping average consumer scores in the range that is most profitable for them. I believe keeping costs low by processing disputes in the most cost effective/profit conscious/ consumer unfriendly is their unstated goal. Where do the CRAs make their money? Answer that and you'll understand why they do what they do.

 

If the recipients of the communication aren't getting 100% accurate and complete communication from all parties...where is the breakdown occurring and why? The whole situation seems to be a game of telephone in which e-oscar is in the middle. Data entered on one end should look/be the same all the way through the system and ALL legal responsibilities should be met. My belief is the system is negligently inefficient at best and/or consciously designed to maximize profits at the DELIBERATE expense of the consumer.

 

Perhaps the CRAs and Data Furnishers use E-oscar as a way to mitigate risk. With E-oscar, they can say, "The messenger/E-oscar wasn't totally efficient. It's not our error."

 

When a consumer sends a dispute to a CRA, according to the law, ALL relevant information must be communicated to the data furnisher. The reasons for the dispute must be communicated to the Data Furnisher.

 

If a consumer disputes something with the CRA as inaccurate/incomplete, the data furnisher shouldn't get a "not mine" dispute from the CRAs.

 

If a consumer disputes a date as inaccurate or incomplete, the data furnisher should receive the specific information instead of "verify information is being reported correctly."

 

Also, the data furnisher has a DUTY to actually investigate the account based upon the actual reason for the dispute. If accounts are simply being verified by looking at the information already typed in...they are NOT adequately investigating.

 

Now that I know what I know, I believe the consumer should have the right to have access to real records for all communications between all parties involved. We should be able to see what was sent to the Data Furnisher from the CRAs and by e-oscar. Requesting verification procedures doesn't provide you with this because they are all ignoring the law and they would be incriminating themselves if they sent what they actually communicated..

[hegemony]

e-oscar is nothing more than a clearing house.

true, but more consumers need to learn about how it works.

[Kat58]

 

e-oscar is nothing more than a clearing house.

 

true, but more consumers need to learn about how it works.

 

Please stop talking to yourself.