Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
breeze

1-2 punch flow chart

Recommended Posts


I have several problems with this flow chart.

 

On the Dispute side of the flow chart, it makes no provision for Direct Disputes, only for disputes through the CRA.

The chart only covers disptues of "accounts." Disputes rarely assert an entire inaccurate account. They usually assert inaccurancy of individual items of information reported by a credtior under an account.

Failure to verify the accuracy of disputed information does not usually mandate deletion of an account, only the correction or deletion of the specific disputed item(s) of information. It is not usually to the consumer's benefit to have an entire account delelted. Age of acccount and CL would also be lost.

 

On the COLLECTIONS side of the flow chart, it says that fairlure of a debt collector to validate is grounds for deletion of the CA from the consumer's credit file. Except for Texas, there is no requirement that a debt collector even validate. Neither the FCRA nor the FDCPA mandates any CR deletion based on lack of validation by a debt collector.

 

In my opinion, the flow chart has some serious inaccuracies and omissions. I, for one, would not use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flow chart intertwines the DV process under the FDCPA with the dispute process under the FCRA. They are entirely different statues. The CRAs are not part of the DV process and the FCRA does not cover procedures related to the DV process.

Method of Verification, which is set forth in FCRA 611(a)(6)(B)(iii), applies only to the procedures used to determine the accuracy and compleness of information disputed. It does not apply to the DV process under the FDCPA.

The FDCPA has no provision for requesting the meithod of verification used by the debt collector to validate debt under collection by a debt collector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flow chart intertwines the DV process under the FDCPA with the dispute process under the FCRA. They are entirely different statues. The CRAs are not part of the DV process and the FCRA does not cover procedures related to the DV process.

Method of Verification, which is set forth in FCRA 611(a)(6)(B)(iii), applies only to the procedures used to determine the accuracy and compleness of information disputed. It does not apply to the DV process under the FDCPA.

The FDCPA has no provision for requesting the meithod of verification used by the debt collector to validate debt under collection by a debt collector.

 

Apparently you aren't familiar with the 1-2 punch process. It works and that flow chart is absolutely correct for that process. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have several problems with this flow chart.

 

On the Dispute side of the flow chart, it makes no provision for Direct Disputes, only for disputes through the CRA.

The chart only covers disptues of "accounts." Disputes rarely assert an entire inaccurate account. They usually assert inaccurancy of individual items of information reported by a credtior under an account.

Failure to verify the accuracy of disputed information does not usually mandate deletion of an account, only the correction or deletion of the specific disputed item(s) of information. It is not usually to the consumer's benefit to have an entire account delelted. Age of acccount and CL would also be lost.

 

On the COLLECTIONS side of the flow chart, it says that fairlure of a debt collector to validate is grounds for deletion of the CA from the consumer's credit file. Except for Texas, there is no requirement that a debt collector even validate. Neither the FCRA nor the FDCPA mandates any CR deletion based on lack of validation by a debt collector.

 

In my opinion, the flow chart has some serious inaccuracies and omissions. I, for one, would not use it.

 

In my opinion, you just aren't aware of the process that flow chart is used for. There are other methods, of course, like the 623 dispute etc. But for the process that chart was made for, it works. It's been used for years here. So, don't use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chart is awesome. My background is in database design, so I LOVE flow charts! :rolleyes:

 

Speaking as a newbie, it really ties together all of the disjointed information that is floating around in my head from reading, and reading, and reading these boards. Thanks SO much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I stand corrected. I did not realize that a "punch procedure" could supercede the statute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't give legal advice, we just use techniques that have been tested and proven to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you send letters to the CRA, how many items would you dispute at a time? Is it wise to send them all at one time? or wait and send them individually?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have several problems with this flow chart.

 

On the Dispute side of the flow chart, it makes no provision for Direct Disputes, only for disputes through the CRA.

The chart only covers disptues of "accounts." Disputes rarely assert an entire inaccurate account. They usually assert inaccurancy of individual items of information reported by a credtior under an account.

Failure to verify the accuracy of disputed information does not usually mandate deletion of an account, only the correction or deletion of the specific disputed item(s) of information. It is not usually to the consumer's benefit to have an entire account delelted. Age of acccount and CL would also be lost.

 

On the COLLECTIONS side of the flow chart, it says that fairlure of a debt collector to validate is grounds for deletion of the CA from the consumer's credit file. Except for Texas, there is no requirement that a debt collector even validate. Neither the FCRA nor the FDCPA mandates any CR deletion based on lack of validation by a debt collector.

 

In my opinion, the flow chart has some serious inaccuracies and omissions. I, for one, would not use it.

 

If you think this is the wrong way and you wouldn't use it then could you enlighten us as to the correct way? I love how people say something won't work or is wrong but then don't back it up with something better than what was originally posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A better way?

Use the DV process for what it is, a way to obtain verifcation that a debt is asserted by the OC, to obtain the name of the OC, to obtain a statement of the amount of the asserted debt, and to require cessation of collection activities until such time as that verification is obtained. The DV process is a collection practices process, and not a process for dispute of the accuracy of information in a consumer credit report.

Use the dispute process for what it is, a way to dispute accuracy of information reported to a consumer credit file.

They are distinct processes.

If those dont provide a "better way," I dont support inventing requirements not provided in those processes.

To attempt to play one off against the other based on some conconcted concept that the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from responding to statutory requirements under a different process set forth in the FCRA is, in my mind, legally unsupported.

If you have a dispute under the FCRA, the "better way" is to pursue it as the process dictates, and not interject unsupported restraints upon their ability to respond to your dispute.

I am still awaiting any legal action brought by a consumer to enforce the logic underlying the "1-2 punch" process. If it was valid, litigation would be common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A better way?

Use the DV process for what it is, a way to obtain verifcation that a debt is asserted by the OC, to obtain the name of the OC, to obtain a statement of the amount of the asserted debt, and to require cessation of collection activities until such time as that verification is obtained. The DV process is a collection practices process, and not a process for dispute of the accuracy of information in a consumer credit report.

Use the dispute process for what it is, a way to dispute accuracy of information reported to a consumer credit file.

They are distinct processes.

If those dont provide a "better way," I dont support inventing requirements not provided in those processes.

To attempt to play one off against the other based on some conconcted concept that the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from responding to statutory requirements under a different process set forth in the FCRA is, in my mind, legally unsupported.

If you have a dispute under the FCRA, the "better way" is to pursue it as the process dictates, and not interject unsupported restraints upon their ability to respond to your dispute.

I am still awaiting any legal action brought by a consumer to enforce the logic underlying the "1-2 punch" process. If it was valid, litigation would be common.

 

 

Just because you don't think it works doesn't mean that's the case. BTW - based upon several of your posts, what collection company do you work for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not going to let anyone take these instructional threads off topic. Want to debate it? Start a new thread, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about to begin the process of taking care of some negatives on my CR. Is this method preferred over the methods discussed in PsychDoc's Credit Repair Seminar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just one of the many "tools in the toolbox" - it's a good one to start with if the debt is old and you are dealing with a collection agency. Different things work in different situations. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have followed your chart and I reached a point where i'm confused in the process. I sent a DV letter to the CA, waited for the green card then disputed with CRAs. It has been 30 days and I haven't heard from the CRA or CA -- do i send a follow up letter to the CA now or do I wait until I receive the results from CRA to send a follow up????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have followed your chart and I reached a point where i'm confused in the process. I sent a DV letter to the CA, waited for the green card then disputed with CRAs. It has been 30 days and I haven't heard from the CRA or CA -- do i send a follow up letter to the CA now or do I wait until I receive the results from CRA to send a follow up????

 

I would wait - there really is no time limit for them to respond, but if they do not respond, they are not supposed to continue collection activities. If you don't hear from them in another couple of weeks, go to the next step - follow up letter to the CA. If you don't receive any response after that, you will have to write to the CRA. At that point, start your own thread in the credit forum, just to make sure you can get timely help and feedback. It can get confusing if you keep posting questions in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would wait - there really is no time limit for them to respond, but if they do not respond, they are not supposed to continue collection activities.

 

I'm definitely a n00b here, but this seems inaccurate. If you are outside the original 30 day window to request validation, then not only are they not under any time limit to respond, but they also do not have to cease collection activity.

 

Can anyone clarify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would wait - there really is no time limit for them to respond, but if they do not respond, they are not supposed to continue collection activities.

 

I'm definitely a n00b here, but this seems inaccurate. If you are outside the original 30 day window to request validation, then not only are they not under any time limit to respond, but they also do not have to cease collection activity.

 

Can anyone clarify?

 

 

That's correct. If you dispute within the first 30 days, they cannot continue collection activities until/unless they validate. If you dispute after the 30 days are up, they do not have to respond at all, and they can continue collection activity. Most people assume that the CA has 30 days to respond to a dispute. That's not the case.

 

A CRA does have 30 days to respond to a dispute.

 

Am I making sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furnishers of information do have a statutory requirement to respond to a notice of dispute referred to them by a CRA.

They are required, under FCRA 623(B)(1)©, to report the results of their investigation back to the consumer reporting agency.

Under section 623(B)(2), their investigation and report back to the CRA is required before the expiration of the period under section 611(a) set for the CRA to complete its investigation (normally 30-days).

 

They accrue these statutory obligations as a result of their initial reporting of the information to a CRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furnishers of information do have a statutory requirement to respond to a notice of dispute referred to them by a CRA.

They are required, under FCRA 623(B)(1)©, to report the results of their investigation back to the consumer reporting agency.

Under section 623(B)(2), their investigation and report back to the CRA is required before the expiration of the period under section 611(a) set for the CRA to complete its investigation (normally 30-days).

 

They accrue these statutory obligations as a result of their initial reporting of the information to a CRA.

 

Under the FCRA, if they do not respond, the derogatory item must be deleted. That's the point of the that part of the flow chart. There is a wide gap between the theory and the reality of credit reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FCRA does not compel deletion if the furnisher of the information fails to provide verification back to the CRA.

Section 623(B)(1)© mandates that the furnisher of the information “shall” report the results of their investigation to the CRA, and section 623(B)(2) sets a deadline requiring that such report be made back to the CRA within the 30-day reinvestigation period imposed on the CRAs under section 611(a)(1). Really tidy if the world were perfect, but it is not. Some furnishers simply fail to respond back to the CRAs. Since the statute compels furnisher response, it does not specifically address those situations where the furnisher does not respond.

 

 

The statute, without addressing situations where the furnisher does not comply with their responsibility to report back to the CRA within the reinvestigation period imposed on the CRA, nonetheless imposes a strict requirement that the CRA complete its investigation (normally) within 30 days, and issue a written report to the consumer within 5 days thereafter. FCRA 611(a)(6)(A). Thus, a lack of investigative results from the furnisher leaves the CRA to complete their reinvestigation without their input.

 

 

The CRAs are compelled under section 611(a)(1)(A) to “conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller.”

 

 

This section, as additionally supplemented by section 611(a)(5)(A), mandates action to be taken by the CRA based on the results of THEIR reinvestigation, and not solely on the results of the furnisher’s investigation. The CRAs assemble all relevant information, and reach a determination as to the accuracy and completeness of the disputed information. They are not compelled to verify based solely upon the furnisher’s investigation, or lack thereof.

 

 

Additionally, even if the CRA determines through their reinvestigation that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, the statute does not compel, as the only outcome, deletion of the disputed information. The statute states an alternative provision, with the first part of the “or” being their recordation of a status of the disputed information that is deemed appropriate. Deletion is not the only possible outcome, and hence the alternate outcome language of the statute. It is not a “rubber-stamp” deletion requirement.

 

 

The CRA ability to conduct their independent reinvestigation and verification without compulsory reliance on the furnisher’s verification or lack thereof is further evidenced by the rather common practice of the CRAs to, in some instances, conduct their reinvestigation without ever sending anything to the furnisher. Disregarding for a moment their legal requirement to send a notice of the dispute to the furnisher (FCRA 611(a)(2)(A), it is their practice. It is often done, for example, if the issue of a judgment is disputed, and the CRA simply places a call to the pertinent court, and obtains their independent verification. Upon review of the information provided by the consumer and their own reinvestigation, they are authorized to verify or determine that the information cannot be verified.

 

 

FCRA 611(a)(5) states what a CRA must do based on the results of their reinvestigation. It is not stated in terms of the furnisher’s investigation, or lack thereof. If their reinvestigation determines that the disputed information is inaccurate or cannot be verified, then they must either “promptly delete the item of information from the file of the consumer, or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation”.

 

 

Thus, regardless of the path taken in reaching the end game of notifying the consumer of the results of their reinvestigation, there is no compulsory requirement either to base the results of their investigation solely on the investigation conducted by the furnisher, or to delete the disputed information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So inaccurate information continues on consumer's reports. :D This is why we say keep all your records, and use CMRR mail - so when we sue them we have proof that they ignored our disputes. Of course, it's just an error. They didn't mean to report the inaccurate information that kept the consumer from getting his mortgage/job/whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one desires to challenge whether the CRA has complied with the requirements of the statute, a consumer can, either when submitting a dispute, or after receiving notice of its resolution, request under FCRA 611(a)(6)(B)(iii) and 611(a)(7), tht the CRA provide a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy of the information, including the business name and address of any furnisher contacted during their reinvestigation.

You would suspect that failure to provide the actual furnisher of the disputed information a copy of the dispute within 5 days of their recepit of the dispute would be a clear violation of section 611(a)(2)(A), and failure to send all information to that furnisher, such as is routinely done when they use their santizing e-Oscar referalls, would be a violation of section 611(a)(2)(B). Did they receive response back from the furnisher?

 

Apparently, this "method of verification" provision was envisioned by congress to curb improper or incomplete verification procedures on the part of a CRA. Does it work? Sicne the administrative dispute process under the FCRA is not a judicial proceeding, the consumer certainly has no discovery rights to compel disclosure, and the CRAs are not going to tell you that they did not comply, so it has very limitited ability to root out the truth, but it is a start. I doubt that many consumers ever require MOV disclosure from a CRA, even in situations where it is asserted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  




  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today.
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      177,749
    • Most Online
      1,528

    Newest Member
    Giancarlos
    Joined

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