Jump to content

The last post in this topic was posted 2444 days ago. 

 

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

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good info mizliz!

This method worked for me on removing my last baddie where an OC was reporting a tradeline.

Parisamour, did you have to sue or did they remove it when you challenged them? mine are big- bank of a, cap one, and chase. I don't think that cap one and chase have the records... bank of a does but they have the wrong dofd and I think they don't have the contract as they bought the account from fleet bank in 2002... could you pm me and tell me how it worked for you.. perhaps I could upload their letters for you if you would be willing to review .... they did not give me what I asked for and I am sure as hell not going to give them what they are asking for. would love to see how it works once the OC is challenged. thanks if you can assist. I thought that this was a pretty clear presentation. I am going to use it in my return letters... thanks Liz

Good information, thank you

 

Where can I find a sample of a 623 dispute

I will send you one tomorrow by pm... ready to hit the hay

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Awesome Info! Thx...

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is quoted from another forum talking about 623 disputes:

 

You do not, and should not, first dispute with the CRA before filing a direct dispute.

In developing the final rules for the direct dispute process, creditor groups made that recommendation during the rulemaking process in order to take teeth out of the process.

The rulemakers rejected that proposal, and in fact included a specific rule, set forth at 16 CFR 660.4(f)(ii), that a direct dispute that is substantially the same as a prior dispute, including a dispute filed via a CRA, can be dismissed without any investigation as "frivolous or irrelevant

Both processes require the furnisher to investigate the asserted inaccuracy, with response going back either to the CRA or directly to the consumer, depnding upon which process is being used.

It was considered duplicative to require a furnisher to investigate the same assertion twice.

Do one or the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not, and should not, first dispute with the CRA before filing a direct dispute.

Incorrect: The disputing process is a legal challenge, and you are building a paper trail and showing noncompliance with federal law.

 

If an OC "verifies" the information in your CRA dispute, then you send the 623 letter essentially asking them to re-investigate what they "verified", detailing their verification error. It is asking the OC to "go on record" that the information they sent to the CRA is fully accurate.

 

The 623 OC dispute does not have a right of private action, so essentially it was enacted without "teeth". You cannot sue an OC if they do not respond to your request.

 

If the OC fails to respond to your 623 letter, oversight has to be through the regulator - which in this case is the Federal Trade Commission (who offsets complaints now to the CFPB).

 

That's why your first challenge should always be the direct CRA dispute. I've gotten collection items removed with a 623, but they were first "verified" by the CRAs.

 

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/pdf-0111-fair-credit-reporting-act.pdf

Edited by tmcgill
Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not, and should not, first dispute with the CRA before filing a direct dispute.

Incorrect: The disputing process is a legal challenge, and you are building a paper trail and showing noncompliance with federal law.

my understanding is that you ask for a "reinvestigation" vs a dispute to build a paper trail, which is what I have done with the CRA

 

If an OC "verifies" the information in your CRA dispute, then you send the 623 letter essentially asking them to re-investigate what they "verified", detailing their verification error. It is asking the OC to "go on record" that the information they sent to the CRA is fully accurate.

this is what I have done and they have failed to provide the method or records by which they verified the information asking me to provide the records

 

The 623 OC dispute does not have a right of private action, so essentially it was enacted without "teeth". You cannot sue an OC if they do not respond to your request.

my understanding is the same and I believe that you request/insist that they remove the information that they don't have the records for and send a copy to BBB/FCPA/FTC

 

 

If the OC fails to respond to your 623 letter, oversight has to be through the regulator - which in this case is the Federal Trade Commission (who offsets complaints now to the CFPB).

 

That's why your first challenge should always be the direct CRA dispute. I've gotten collection items removed with a 623, but they were first "verified" by the CRAs.

I have been informed that you don't CRA DISPUTE but must insist on a "reinvestigation" from which you then challenge how they reinvestigated the info without any records

 

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/pdf-0111-fair-credit-reporting-act.pdf

 

I would appreciate any assistance on how you dispute- I believe that I asked for certain records that they have reported on such as the original contract date and a copy thereof (they have no contract), affirmation of the date of first delinquency and how it was arrived at, and an accounting of the amount of they sold to the JDB, and a copy of the contract of sale of my account. I also asked the name and contact number of the person who reinvestigated the information and how they did this. I also have the tel no, name,and employee number and date of two calls to each OC that state that they no longer have any records of my account except the name and year of when they sold the debt and the name of the JDB.. If I am not doing this correctly, I would appreciate any advise. What I thought was helpful was that the article spoke to the issue that you don't seem to have to provide THEM with the information, that they have to provide YOU with the confirmation method and info. For example, without the DoFD confirmed through their records, the date of removal is moot...as is a good bit of the information provided in the chargeoff info. For Example, it shows opening date of contract,amount of line of credit, and a history of the account (which will not paste). They don't even have the amount charged off or the date thereof or the date of First Delinquency on which basis it will be removed from the account. Therefore, I don't believe that they have these records....or that they even have any records of how it came to be charged off.

 

I would appreciate any guidance as this whole process has been difficult to wrap my head around. It is my last resort. These accounts were paid off through collectors/JDB...They have been removed by TU and EQ but EX will not remove so my only resort is to try to get the creditor to remove them via this method. HELP!! I have gotten back the letters from Chase and Cap one and they did not supply ANY of the info requested that they used to reinvestigate this information and confirm its accuracy.

CHASE

Potentially Negative Closed

800-955-9900

PO BOX 15298

WILMINGTON, DE 19850

Account Name

CHASE

No Data Returned

For This Bureau

No Data Returned

For This Bureau

Account #

xxxxx-xxxxXXXX

Account Type

Credit Card

Balance

$0.00

Date Opened

5/1/2008

Account Status

Closed

Mo. Payment

Close Account Details

Past Due

$0.00

Payment Status

Charge-off

High Balance

Limit

$400.00

Terms

Revolving

Comments

Account in dispute-reported by subscriber

24-Month Payment History THIS IS FILLED IN BUT WONT PASTE

 

2009

2010

2011

 

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

120

120

KD

KD

KD

KD

KD

KD

KD

KD

KD

KD

KD

KD

KD

KD

KD

KD

KD

KD

KD

KD

KD

OK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Month

Experian

Equifax

TransUnion

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Example:

 

The DOFD is incorrect on your CRA report, extending the fall off date.

You dispute with Experian [for example] and Experian says the data furnisher [OC] verified it as correct.

The verification error violates federal law, as FCRA requires all reporting to be fully accurate.

 

This is when you would send the 623 letter. Essentially, you are challenging what the OC verified.

When I sent previous 623 letters, I included statements to prove the reporting error.

 

**The 623 letter essentially says . . .

- You verified this with the CRA which violates federal law. Here's what is wrong and needs correcting or deleting.

 

Note: The only time I would send a FACTA [623] letter directly to an OC [before disputing with the CRA] is for an identity theft issue, which has other legal requirements.

Edited by tmcgill
Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the response. Do I have to provide my records to prove it or is it incumbent upon them to have the records that they used to verify the information? Do they have to have the original contract for the opening of account date and the credit line? are they required to have the records retained in order to continue to report the information? Or can you claim another date and they have to prove you wrong... I am just at a loss since they end up providing so little info after it has been charged off...They are obviously just reiterating what is on there but do they have to produce records or do I? or have they broken the law already by not truly verifying the info by not having any records?

 

I am still confused on who it is incumbent to provide records...Sorry to be so dense but this seems to be such a grey area... Thank you again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you send a 623 you are asking them to investigate what they are reporting. No one is required to send documentation as part of the request, but anything you have to support your claim helps.

 

When I disputed re-aged collection accounts, I sent copies of previous statements to show they were reporting and verifying obsolete accounts. I wasn't required to send those, but wanted to get the information removed. I had disputed twice, but both Experian and Equifax said the information was verified and would stay on the reports. I finally got the entries deleted after the 623.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you. If the OCs are unable to provide the original contract,must they remove the date or even the account? If they are unable to provide the records to substantiate the DoFD, must they accept my assertions? Can I provide to them a letter (with a copy to the FTC) saying what their own credit analysts have said and what they have failed to provide to me so far as records requested? All of my letters requesting such information were very neutral, none mentioning 623, saying that my remembrance of dates of first delinquency were different as well as the amount charged off, fees, etc, that their investigation was in conflict with my records of payment, etc. If I provide a copy of a check or auto pay and say it was my last payment, can they really contest it if they have no records with which to contest?

 

I realize that you are probably not a lawyer but you are clearly far more adept at this than I am. This is sort of my last hurrah- they are the only agency that does not follow the NYS 5 year purge law so I am trying to remove this by any means possible or to forego any EX CRA credit info for any credit rebuilding for another two years or so. I am on a special handling with EX since I reported certain activities to the NY AG (bad girl chair in corner...with hat) so I have to tread carefully.

 

Bank of America is outright wrong on their DoFD (I have the records and they still have the monthly statements) but they have no contract to my belief as they bought my account in a bulk transfer from Fleet in 2004 or so... Are they able to report my account if they have no original contract and no contract of sale of the account to CACHE? (the sol is over, btw). With Cap One and Chase, I believe that they have no records whatsoever. Do you think that I should hire a credit attorney for this?

 

Again, thank you for your patience... Bank of America has not yet responded so I am hopeful that they may just delete or that they are truly investigating the DoFD and whether they have the contract. The letters from Chase and Cap One were stunning as to their lack of responsiveness to the issues and substantiation that I requested. I wonder if there is a penalty for false substantiation of information and if they would remove it rather face a fine. Could ICANHASMUCH possibly chime in on this? This is my last hurdle to three clean reports and I realize that I am rather rabid on the subject, hence my apologies in advance...

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you. If the OCs are unable to provide the original contract,must they remove the date or even the account?


Response: FACTA does not require them to provide records, but they are required to report info that is fully accurate.They are suppose to double check their internal records and prove what they submitted is 100% acccurate. If not, they must remove or correct the information.



Can I provide to them a letter (with a copy to the FTC) saying what their own credit analysts have said and what they have failed to provide to me so far as records requested?


Response: Unless you are a victim of identity theft or fraud, they are not required to provide records. If you have documents that show the DOFD, and they are reporting it incorrectly, I would file two reports. One with the CFPB, and the other with the NY AG (is it possible to file with them on this issue?)



Again, thank you for your patience... Bank of America has not yet responded . .


Response: When did you send the letter? As the OC, they have 30 days to respond to an investigation request.


Edited by tmcgill
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

There's been no activity on this topic for a few months but it caught my eye as I have a Chase CO on my CRA's also.

 

This account was bought from what was once Washington Mutual and before that Providian.

 

The DOFD is 11/08.

 

1) I was wondering if mizliz had any luck with the 623.

 

2) AND if anyone thinks I'd have any success in disputing w/ the CRA, then after they verified disputing Chase with copies of agreements along with all of the other data they reported. The date they last reported is 06/01/2009.

 

Anybody want to offer their suggestions or experience with Chase. (This debt was sold to Midland BTW)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last post in this topic was posted 2444 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 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 mizliz1011
      Does Opting Out improve your scores? its been so long since someone spontaneously wanted to give me credit that I don't know if I should bother. top score is in mid 600's with TU but they are climbing fast as stuff is taken off of tradelines and resolved...
       
      just wondering...
    • By mizliz1011
      does anyone know what "skip? means? Its not like I skipped out on the debt- was at same address for 40 years...
       
    • By mizliz1011
      http://defendyourdollars.org/posts/2948-cfpb-calls-out-credit-bureaus-and-debt-collectors-for-abusive-practices



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      181,944
    • Most Online
      2,046

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

Important Information

Guidelines