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.


What triggers the notice that consumer disputes a tradeline?

Recommended Posts

Does disputing with the CRA trigger it or only after you dispute with the original creditor/furnisher?

 

What I’m talking about is there is a provision, I think in the FCRA, maybe the FDCPA that states that it must be reported as consumer disputes.... it’s required by the act. Just not sure what causes that requirement to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both types of disputes generate their own peculiar notices.

Sent from my SM-P580 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well.
 

And what if it has been disputed multiple times, in detail, with evidence, as to why it’s a BS, festering and POS tradeline, yet it comes back verified with no notice that consumer disputes.

 

Then what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if it is incorrectly reporting and the four major CRAs are not correcting it after FCRA disputes AND you have a paper trail then what is stopping you from employing legal steps beyond the dispute process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarvBear said:

You have done a 623 dispute?

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 

I’ve helped a family member dispute every incorrect item of the tradeline. Which is a majority, based on statements the company provided to them and supporting history of payment from their checking account.
 

The dispute was valid and in accordance with the FCRA, specifically 623 (a)(3) and likely (a)(5).

 

Came back verified as accurate and no change. Even though they were able to prove the reporting was inaccurate even by their own statements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you do the 623 disputes AFTER you did the 609 disputes?

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

Share this post


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

if it is incorrectly reporting and the four major CRAs are not correcting it after FCRA disputes AND you have a paper trail then what is stopping you from employing legal steps beyond the dispute process?

Really good question. And likely you knew the answer before you asked. The creditor, unfortunately, has been successful, even in the high courts of hiding behind tribal immunity. 
 

Back story, a family member, my brother, has finally decided to fly right and deal with some challenges. He was about to file bankruptcy but the majority of his problems reporting wise, was low hanging fruit. The majority was either resolved and deleted or fell off after dispute and they didn’t answer. 
 

He got in to the online payday loan game last year and after they finally cleaned him out bi-weekly for half a year, there was no where to go but up, so I helped him get them off his checking account and here we are today with one that charged off. All of them are tribal and had been paid back more than what was borrowed and technically, not valid in the state in which he resides. 
 

This one company is called Mobiloans. It’s only on TU, grossly inaccurate but will not budge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MarvBear said:

Did you do the 623 disputes AFTER you did the 609 disputes?

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 

Not sure, it was written letters, sent CMRR each time, disputing the accuracy of the tradeline, each wrong item highlighted and proof of why it was wrong.

 

The first time it was a rejected, needing proof that it was really him disputing, the second time it was verified and again on a follow-up.

 

The final round of it came back as basically saying to pound sand and they have done their job. No change/no review.


He pulled his annual free reports today and this pile of dog crap still sits there, no wording that consumer disputes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For this type of dispute to be effective you Must File a 609 dispute with the credit reporting agencies first. After the reinvestigation results are in and you are displeased then and only then would be the time to file a 623 dispute to have a chance of it being successful. And then the anecdotal notations should be appended.

Without the sequenced steps it may have become cemented to the credit file(s).

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an aside, maybe someone can explain to me why there's a reference to a "609 dispute"? 

 

I'm not sure the word "dispute" appears anywhere within FCRA Sec 609 - "Disclosures to Consumers". 

On her other hand, Sec 611 - "Procedure in case of disputed accuracy", appear to go to the heart of the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, discopanda said:

Really good question. And likely you knew the answer before you asked. The creditor, unfortunately, has been successful, even in the high courts of hiding behind tribal immunity. 
 

Back story, a family member, my brother, has finally decided to fly right and deal with some challenges. He was about to file bankruptcy but the majority of his problems reporting wise, was low hanging fruit. The majority was either resolved and deleted or fell off after dispute and they didn’t answer. 
 

He got in to the online payday loan game last year and after they finally cleaned him out bi-weekly for half a year, there was no where to go but up, so I helped him get them off his checking account and here we are today with one that charged off. All of them are tribal and had been paid back more than what was borrowed and technically, not valid in the state in which he resides. 
 

This one company is called Mobiloans. It’s only on TU, grossly inaccurate but will not budge.

not sure why you think I can read minds; I had no idea what the tradeline is for.

 

AFAIK, the four major CRAs are not immune via tribal immunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just as an aside, maybe someone can explain to me why there's a reference to a "609 dispute"? 
 
I'm not sure the word "dispute" appears anywhere within FCRA Sec 609 - "Disclosures to Consumers". 
On her other hand, Sec 611 - "Procedure in case of disputed accuracy", appear to go to the heart of the matter.
What Is Section 609?

Section 609 refers to a section of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that addresses your rights to request copies of your own credit reports and associated information that appears on your credit reports. Section 609, oddly enough, doesn't have anything to do with your right to dispute information on your credit reports or a credit reporting agency's obligations to perform investigations into your disputes. There is no such "609 Dispute Letter" anywhere to be found in the FCRA.
The FCRA does, in fact, include a considerable amount of language memorializing your rights to dispute the information found in your credit reports. But it's in section 611 of the statute, rather than in section 609. Thanks to section 611, we all enjoy the right to dispute information we believe to be incorrect or unverifiable. And if the disputed information cannot be verified or confirmed, then it must be removed.


Sent from my SM-P580 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hegemony said:

not sure why you think I can read minds; I had no idea what the tradeline is for.

 

AFAIK, the four major CRAs are not immune via tribal immunity.

The Supreme Court says they are, granted, if you don’t bring a factual dispute.

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/19-1519/19-1519-2020-05-11.html

 

Apparently, this is a big mess, where the other CRA’s don’t report for them but they use TU as their collection agency. These are loans that are illegal and void in most states but they hide behind the tribal cloak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MarvBear said:

The FCRA does, in fact, include a considerable amount of language memorializing your rights to dispute the information found in your credit reports. But it's in section 611 of the statute, rather than in section 609. Thanks to section 611, we all enjoy the right to dispute information we believe to be incorrect or unverifiable. And if the disputed information cannot be verified or confirmed, then it must be removed.
 

 

Thanks for this!

 

FWIW, I went back and took another gander at Sec 609 (it's not particularly long or complex), since I didn't think it likely arbitrary that it's referenced in the context of a dispute, rather than 611.  There actually is a small snippet I overlooked on first pass that's pertinent, under "Summary of Rights to Obtain and Dispute Information in Consumer Reports and to Obtain Credit Scores".

 

(iii) the right of a consumer to dispute information in the file of the consumer under section 611;

 

I'd speculate that a reference to a "Section 609 dispute" in communicating with a CRA merely draws unwanted scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes some of us have senior moments.    I'd welcome the opportunity for any of our members  who would rather spend time correcting my senior moments (of which there are plenty) than those that would post a legitimate answer in response to the direct question asked.

 

And yes, I am grouchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, discopanda said:

The Supreme Court says they are, granted, if you don’t bring a factual dispute.

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/19-1519/19-1519-2020-05-11.html

 

Apparently, this is a big mess, where the other CRA’s don’t report for them but they use TU as their collection agency. These are loans that are illegal and void in most states but they hide behind the tribal cloak.

so it is reporting correctly, you are trying to claim it shouldn't report because of the licensing issue. got it.

Share this post


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

so it is reporting correctly, you are trying to claim it shouldn't report because of the licensing issue. got it.

In his case, no, its not reporting accurately at all. Never has. But TU takes what they furnish and that’s it.

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.





  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      178,884
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    Mrplantato
    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