Jump to content

The last post in this topic was posted 2600 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Recommended Posts

I know we have a Chex forum, and I've gotten help from there on a more Chex-specific issue, but this is more about FCRA and CRAs, in general. I want to file a complaint with the CFPB, but before I do, I thought I'd check with the pros.

I disputed a misspelling of my first name (it's missing a letter) on my Chex report, and this is how they replied:

 

(Let's say my name is Suzie Qewe.)

 

"In addition, our records indicate that the disputed name Suie Qewe was provided by you in previous contact with us. Therefore, it has been retained in your consumer file. Should you wish ChexSystems to pursue this matter further, we must first receive a notarized statement confirming that this address does not belong to and has not been used by you. Once we have received this notarized statement, we will be happy to review the situation further and will inform you of any actions taken."

 

Keep in mind that the sentence combines reference to a misspelled name and "address"...this makes no sense.

 

And if I am the one who allegedly "furnished" this data to them, don't I have a duty to correct?? I included a copy of my TXDL, so they were looking at proof of identity. Do my creditors send notarized statements when THEY correct furnished data...?? (Nevermind the fact that I know how to spell my name, so I seriously doubt I furnished this data.)

Edited by HoustonLynne
Link to post
Share on other sites

Starting to think Chex is the Devil, not Experian. I phoned in a request for my Chex report, and have heard exactly nothing at all. Not a single thing. FWIW, my entries "should have" aged off, as it has been more than 5 years.

 

Not sure where Chex gets 5 years from, either, especially if they are to be treated as a CRA...

 

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know we have a Chex forum, and I've gotten help from there on a more Chex-specific issue, but this is more about FCRA and CRAs, in general. I want to file a complaint with the CFPB, but before I do, I thought I'd check with the pros.

I disputed a misspelling of my first name (it's missing a letter) on my Chex report, and this is how they replied:

 

(Let's say my name is Suzie Qewe.)

 

"In addition, our records indicate that the disputed name Suie Qewe was provided by you in previous contact with us. Therefore, it has been retained in your consumer file. Should you wish ChexSystems to pursue this matter further, we must first receive a notarized statement confirming that this address does not belong to and has not been used by you. Once we have received this notarized statement, we will be happy to review the situation further and will inform you of any actions taken."

 

Keep in mind that the sentence combines reference to a misspelled name and "address"...this makes no sense.

 

And if I am the one who allegedly "furnished" this data to them, don't I have a duty to correct?? I included a copy of my TXDL, so they were looking at proof of identity. Do my creditors send notarized statements when THEY correct furnished data...?? (Nevermind the fact that I know how to spell my name, so I seriously doubt I furnished this data.)

 

It is crazy but notarization just serves to clearly identify you via an uninterested third party and verify any statement you make as being made by you. Notarization does not verify any claims you make only that you are the one that makes them. This isn't necessary for creditors since they have an established business contract with the CRAs so their identity isn't in question.

 

The request is unusual but is a way to make sure someone isn't going through a third party such as Lexington Law.

 

I wouldn't have any problem sending this to a CRA (a CA or JDB is another question entirely). Make a photocopy to keep and have both notarized.

Edited by cashnocredit
Link to post
Share on other sites

To rslifkin: Under the FCRA, Chex is a considered a Speciality Consumer Reporting Agency. The five years is their own internal business policy. (They legally could report for 7 years)

 

Re: The notarized statement is rubbish. They have a copy of your ID, and they're online with the social security administration, as they verify SSNs. They've been given the legal documentation to prove your correct name.

 

I would send a notarized statement if you don't want to go through the complaint cycle, otherwise, file a complaint with the CFPB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd do some more research. Find an FCRA violation and then I'd file suit on that. They listen to lawsuits. Most have said they don't do anything until a lawsuit is filed. There was an article on here just a few weeks ago about a multi million dollar judgement against one of the CRA's.

 

Chex makes it impossible to open an account if your account is closed for any reason. More and more banks are going with Chexsystems and less and less with Telecheck. It's a sad day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the input. I've read the FCRA and FACTA, and there are myriad segments I could pluck to support why this request is not very "reasonable" on the part of Chex. And while I would not-too-vehemently oppose jumping through their little hoop if it were free and somewhat convenient, it is not. I don't know of anywhere I can get free notary service. And the irony is that the notary will rely solely on my TXDL to confirm my identity, and then they will only be bearing witness to the fact that I am the one who is physically signing the statement. Ridiculousness.

 

They're already on my Poop List for a larger matter, which the OCC passed along to the CFPB (I'd intended/attempted to complain about Chase, actually -- but the facts heavily pointed to Chex, too. OCC passed the buck to the CFPB.) Anyway, the point is that I think I'll go out of my way to make this alleged and innocent misstatement of mine "right" -- just not the way Chex dictated that it should be done. They could have spent some time actually verifying my dispute regarding Chase...less time on devising this silly method of remedy. :dntknw:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the input. I've read the FCRA and FACTA, and there are myriad segments I could pluck to support why this request is not very "reasonable" on the part of Chex. And while I would not-too-vehemently oppose jumping through their little hoop if it were free and somewhat convenient, it is not. I don't know of anywhere I can get free notary service. And the irony is that the notary will rely solely on my TXDL to confirm my identity, and then they will only be bearing witness to the fact that I am the one who is physically signing the statement. Ridiculousness.

 

They're already on my Poop List for a larger matter, which the OCC passed along to the CFPB (I'd intended/attempted to complain about Chase, actually -- but the facts heavily pointed to Chex, too. OCC passed the buck to the CFPB.) Anyway, the point is that I think I'll go out of my way to make this alleged and innocent misstatement of mine "right" -- just not the way Chex dictated that it should be done. They could have spent some time actually verifying my dispute regarding Chase...less time on devising this silly method of remedy. :dntknw:

 

I know we discussed this in another thread and I side with you about the whole issue. However, in the interest of helping you achieve your ultimate goal, then here is an additional thought.

 

Do you belong to a credit union? Credit unions usually offer free notary service as one of their member benefits. Another thought might be to check with your insurance agent. I was able to have some documents notarized by my agent's office, free of charge.

Edited by policebox
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for all the input. I've read the FCRA and FACTA, and there are myriad segments I could pluck to support why this request is not very "reasonable" on the part of Chex. And while I would not-too-vehemently oppose jumping through their little hoop if it were free and somewhat convenient, it is not. I don't know of anywhere I can get free notary service. And the irony is that the notary will rely solely on my TXDL to confirm my identity, and then they will only be bearing witness to the fact that I am the one who is physically signing the statement. Ridiculousness.

 

They're already on my Poop List for a larger matter, which the OCC passed along to the CFPB (I'd intended/attempted to complain about Chase, actually -- but the facts heavily pointed to Chex, too. OCC passed the buck to the CFPB.) Anyway, the point is that I think I'll go out of my way to make this alleged and innocent misstatement of mine "right" -- just not the way Chex dictated that it should be done. They could have spent some time actually verifying my dispute regarding Chase...less time on devising this silly method of remedy. :dntknw:

I know we discussed this in another thread and I side with you about the whole issue. However, in the interest of helping you achieve your ultimate goal, then here is an additional thought.

 

Do you belong to a credit union? Credit unions usually offer free notary service as one of their member benefits. Another thought might be to check with your insurance agent. I was able to have some documents notarized by my agent's office, free of charge.

Great suggestions, and I'll give that some thought. None of the CUs I belong to have local branches, but they all participate in co-op branching. So maybe I could avail myself of the service via one of the local co-op CU locations. I'll look into that, if I get over my irritation with Chex. ;)

My insurance "agent" is USAA...no offices in Houston, that I'm aware of. :dntknw:

Link to post
Share on other sites

All great suggestions, and I went with an option I hadn't yet considered. I resubmitted the dispute to Chex, and the following are a few of my reasons:

  1. I didn't spell out in my original dispute letter that I was including a copy of my TXDL, so if I end up filing a complaint with the CFPB, I want there to be no room for me to be the one looking like an salamander! :) I stated in this dispute that I "have no record" of including my valid Texas Driver License with my first dispute, so I am including it now. (Paper trail for a CFPB complaint, if needed.)
  2. FACTA spells out what is "proper identification" for the purposes therein, which includes a state issued ID or DL. I mentioned that, too.
  3. I made sure this new dispute is strictly about my misspelled name. Their response to me about my name asked for a notarized statement about the "address". I'll give them an opportunity to redeem themselves, as I'm "assuming" they made an error. (NOTE: My original dispute included both a misspelled name and a duplicate of my address. They commented on the address separately in their response by saying it was provided by a financial institution and "remains".)
  4. I wanted to assert that their request was both confusing and unreasonable. The CFPB is focusing on how "confusing" it is for consumers to decipher reports and the dispute process. The FCRA and FACTA use the word "reasonable" many times.

We'll see how it goes. If they don't delete it this time, I'm filing with the CFPB. :dntknw:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Here are a few links regarding Chexsystems' relevance being diminished:

 

http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-announces-commitment-capital-one-expand-access-bank-accounts-consumers

 

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/new-york-investigates-disqualification-of-customers-by-banks/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

 

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/over-a-million-are-denied-bank-accounts-for-past-errors/?_r=0

 

Also, NCUA, the credit union industry's equivalent to the FDIC, is not too fond of CUs utilizing Chexsystems. In fact, they suggest it's contrary to the original intentions when credit unions were initially established. Read this opinion: http://www.ncua.gov/Legal/OpinionLetters/OL1999-0435.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, Chexsystems still has a big impact on consumers. Not only do they block new account approvals, but often any negative updates to a file may result in existing accounts being frozen or closed.

 

We post strategies for dealing with them on the Chexsystems forum.

 

Note: I hope the latest dispute strategy works. The FCRA gives them the right to verify your identity, but generally a government-issued ID or passport suffices. Keep us posted on any updates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember where (or if) I updated with the results of this from earlier this year. :dntknw:

 

Chex deleted the misspelled name without issue, after processing my 2nd dispute as outlined in post #10.

 

At the time, they had bigger issues on their hands with me -- tmcgill, you may recall my Chase CO thread in the Chex forum around the same time. :wave:

 

Goodness, all of that seems so long ago...time flies when you're working on your CP status. :angel:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last post in this topic was posted 2600 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By david_weaver
      A while back, I waged quite a battle with US Bank over how my account history was being reported. This progressed all the way to the executive office. In the end, they basically told me NO. Despite my providing documentation to prove they were reporting incorrectly. By then, I had been approved for a mortgage on the new house I was purchasing, and I was weary from the fight. I should not have let it go, but I moved on.
       
      Fast forward 16 months, and I am again relocating and shopping for mortgages. One of the things the loan office had questions about, of course, was the US Bank mortgage. Annoyed that I would even still have to answer for these late payments, I disputed with credit bureaus. I thought maybe since more time had passed, and the mortgage was paid off, the results might be different. Boy, were they. The disputed late payments from 2011 were changed from being between 30-60-90 days late to 120-150-180 days late.
       
      After battling them for over a year the first time, I am through playing nice with them.
       
      So where do I turn?
       
      Do I contact CFPB? Do I notify them of FCRA violations and demand correction AND compensation? Do I get an attorney?
       
      Thanks!
    • By ManofB
      Anyone call up the three CRA's to have all dispute language removed before starting a new round of disputes? Are the reps at the CRA's accommodating in doing this? Would doing this prevent the "we've already investigated this/frivolous" love letter we sometimes get back?
    • By ManofB
      So I have a little lull in the action right now while my existing irons do their work in their respective fires, so I've been researching and reading, looking for trends of what has had some success, what has had minor results, etc etc.
       
      Came across the jack attack method in my readings, but haven't seen anything recent posted; seems like there was some good success with it in the 2009-2011 time frame, not much said since then. At least as far as I can find on here using the search.
       
      Anyone still use this method and have success with it? Am I right to understand that the point is to pick apart a trade line and dispute line by line the individual incorrect items with the hopes that the processor will just go for a quickie delete button rather than proceeding?
    • By soblue
      Hello!! Ok so here is my dilemma. Not sure if this is the right forum.
      I’m 25 years old and just discovered what Chexsystem is. I lost my job and my checking account became overdrawn for $420 dollars. Half of which are fees from TD Bank. I contacted TD immediately after I received my first paycheck and they said they were in the process of closing my account it was on day 61; so I just missed it by a day!! Grrrrr! I begged and pleaded ask to speak to supervisors and all I got was there is nothing we could do.

      So, I hopped online and back on this board and after reading through everything I went the next day which was this past Tuesday and opened up 4 checking accounts Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citizens Bank and local Credit Union. I didn’t want to take any chances on when they would report me to Chexsystems so I just went the very next day. From what I’ve read once you’re in ChexSystems you can’t open a checking account for 5 years! That’s crazy! There is no way I could go 5 years. The reason I opened 4 is because I saw where some accounts were closed because the bank did a Chexsystems sweep, so I figure out of 4 I have a better chance of having at least one stay open. My other reasons are because I need to establish credit; so I want to get secured credit cards with all these banks and start utilizing.

      My credit file was blank up until last year. I have 2 collections, one medical and one is from an AT&T bill and I am assuming now the one from TD bank will appear soon. I just started working with Credit saint credit repair (heard good things about them and good BBB rating) I’m not that savvy in contacting the bureaus myself.
       
      OK so basically I just need a game plan at this point on how to establish my credit from this point on and rebuild. I REALLY hate I let these stupid 3 things even get on my file! Please help and sorry for the long rant!
       
    • By mizliz1011
      this is a very clear presentation of a 623 dispute so far as how the law applies to such a situation. I hope that others will find this helpful...

      623 Dispute Method

      When the conventional method of disputing an inaccuracy on your credit report fails to yield results, the 623 dispute method may be a viable alternative to getting erroneous or unconfirmed information removed from your report. The 623 dispute method allows you to dispute any inaccurate information on your credit report directly with the original creditor. A 623 dispute does not work in the same way as a traditional dispute through the credit bureaus because you are not asking for verification of the debt, but for an investigation as to the accuracy of the records on that debt. If you creditor does not have accurate records pertaining to that debt, then they must remove the negative information on your credit report. The process usually follows these steps:

      1. File a dispute with the credit bureau.

      2. Await the results of the investigation. If the negative information is not removed, then proceed.

      3. File a 623 Dispute notice with the original creditor, asking for an investigation into the debt or delinquency.

      4. If the original creditor does not have proof of the debt or delinquency, the negative information must be removed from your credit report.

      5. If the original creditor does not comply, you will have to file suit in order to have it removed.

      How It Works

      In order to successfully challenge negative listings on your credit report through the 623 dispute method, you must first dispute the information through the credit bureau. When you dispute the information to the credit bureau, you must wait for the 30 days for the investigation to be complete. If the original creditor verifies that the negative listing is accurate, then you move forward with the next step which is to dispute directly with the original creditor itself.

      Under the laws governing the 623 dispute method, creditors must conduct an investigation when requested. In addition, when investigating, they must review the information that you provide relating to that dispute, and they must respond within 30 days to your original investigation request. The new laws governing fair credit reporting explicitly require the original creditors to investigate when requested, and will take effect on July 1, 2010.

      This method will only work to remove entries on your credit report that are inaccurate, or entries in which the creditor no longer has to verifiable information. While you might think that the credit card agencies will have up-to-the-minute information about your past debts, this is often not the case. In fact most credit card companies will only keep your records for 13 to 18 months. Any late fees, charge-offs, or other information prior to this time they will not be able to verify through their records. The 623 dispute method works because anything that is inaccurate, or not in the records will have to be corrected on your credit report. What this means is, if the credit card company does not have any records on your account at all they must contact the credit bureaus to have the negative information removed.

      If you have disputed the information through the credit bureau before initiating the 623 dispute process, and the creditor refuses to remove erroneous information, you will have grounds to sue. Otherwise, your only legal recourse will be to have the state or federal authorities pursue the case, and it is solely at their discretion to do so.

      Warning: This dispute method probably will not work for a debt that is fairly recent. It is also unlikely to work for those companies who do keep detailed records spanning several years. In addition, you will need to be somewhat specific about the information you wish to be investigated and any records that you have that can prove that there is an error will be helpful. At the very minimum, you must identify the account by the actual account number and provide a reason to the original creditor explaining why you are disputing the accuracy of their records. If you do not provide this information as a part of your investigation request, the original creditor may determine that your request is frivolous and deny the investigation. Overall, the 623 dispute method works best for past delinquencies and charge-offs that may no longer be listed appropriately in the records.
       



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      182,709
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    DJUANCLAY
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines