Jump to content

Please consider disabling your adblocker for CreditBoards if you have not already done so.  This site depends on advertising revenue to stay online.


Sign in to follow this  

TU, EX & EQ won't comply with Method of Verification Request; CFPB complaint useless

Recommended Posts

So, I disputed a charge-off that appears on my Transunion, Experian, and Equifax reports. All three bureaus verify the tradeline. I follow-up with a "Method of Verification" request to all three bureaus, sent via USPS certified mail (text of MOV letter is included below).

 

Instead of replying to the MOV request, all three bureaus open a new dispute into the tradeline. After more than 30+ days without a response, I filed complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau against all three bureaus. The CFPB complaints were filed on 5/11/20; Experian and Equifax have not responded yet, but Transunion responded on Saturday, 5/16/20. Their reply to my complaint is as follows:

Quote

Transunion's Response
We applaud your recent efforts to take charge of your credit. We want you to know we’re on your side, and we’re here to help support you on your path toward credit health. We recently received a request that contained your information, but it didn’t appear to have been communicated by you or a properly authorized third party. We take the privacy and security of your data very seriously, so we won’t process requests unless they come directly from you or an authorized third party. If you’re working with a third party such as a credit repair company or ‘credit clinic’, they have to identify themselves in their communication to us, and provide proof that you’ve authorized them to communicate with us on your behalf. It’s important to know that if you see something on your TransUnion credit report that you believe is inaccurate, you can dispute it easily and securely on your own for free, without paying a fee to any company. Find out more about how to manage the information on your TransUnion report at transunion.com/repair letter. If you’ve hired a credit repair company and they insist on payment up front, encourage you to misrepresent your credit information or instruct you not to contact a credit reporting agency directly, they are not acting lawfully. Learn more about credit repair and your rights under federal law at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/how-avoid-credit-repair-service-scams/ You can count on us as a resource as you work to achieve your credit health goals – we want you to be able to get the financial opportunities you deserve. Should you have any further questions, please contact www.transunion.com (800) 916-8800 P.O. Box 2000 Chester, PA 19016-2000

The CFPB immediately closed my complaint on 5/16/20 after Transunion's "response".

 

Any suggestions where I go from here? I have no idea what the point of having some federal administrative agency is if they don't have any purpose to follow through on consumer law issues.

 

Here's the original text of my MOV letter:

Quote

Attention To: Transunion Consumer Solutions

PO Box 2000, Chester, PA 19016-2000

 

Re: Method of Verification Request

 

SENT VIA USPS CERTIFIED MAIL #: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 

To Whom It May Concern: I previously sent you a letter, dated June 28, 2019, disputing an item on my credit file, and requesting that you perform a full and complete investigation, under FCRA 611 (a).

 

The Data Furnisher for the tradeline that I disputed is as follows:

 

[NAME OF FURNISHER] 

 

The dispute was sent via USPS Certified Mail # XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. 

 

Unfortunately, after the investigation you performed was completed, the erroneous, inaccurate information is still being reported on my credit file.

 

I’m certain that the item I have disputed is incorrect and should be removed, so I am hereby exercising my rights under FCRA 611 (a) (7), and I am requesting a complete description of all methods used to investigate my above mentioned dispute. 

 

I’m very interested to learn how your investigator(s) have come to this erroneous decision of the investigation.

 

Under the FCRA, I am requesting that you provide me with a complete list of all documents and correspondence you had with [NAME OF DATE FURNISHER], in relation to this investigation. Please include all of the names, phone numbers, & contact info of the employees you spoke to at [NAME OF DATA FURNISHER] as part of this investigation.

 

Any automated response or e-Oscar verification is unacceptable. 

 

I am enclosing the initial dispute letter, that I previously sent you, to assist you so that you can expediently process my request under the FCRA to verify the method(s) used in your investigation.  

 

Please do not send me a template letter in response to this request. I am in the process of pursuing litigation, so I need specific answers to the specific questions asked of you in this letter.  

 

Under the rights I am afforded by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, I expect to receive a response within 15 days of receipt of this letter; if you cannot provide a detailed response within 15 days of receipt of this letter, I expect that the [NAME OF DATA FURNISHER] tradeline on my credit file will be permanently deleted.

 

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

 

Edited by seanote
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did IDS respond?

 

FWIW, nothing says the other 3 CRAs need to provide you info like "contact info of the employees you spoke to"

 

What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Were your initial disputes CMRR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hegemony said:

How did IDS respond?

 

FWIW, nothing says the other 3 CRAs need to provide you info like "contact info of the employees you spoke to"

 

What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Were your initial disputes CMRR?

I didn't dispute with Innovis, the derogatory tradeline wasn't reporting on my report. I did send the initial disputes CMRR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, that sample letter has been around for ages. In the future, consider writing letters that are custom to your situation and only for your intended purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, centex said:

Your mistake was referencing litigation.  Time to let your attorney add them as a co-defendant. 

especially on a debt for which an SOL defense is not a viable option.

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  




  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      180,156
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    Nadinyc
    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