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.

Can credit bearu ever block/refuse to investigate?

Recommended Posts

I’m curious, can a credit bearu ever block you from disputing for any reason? If so for how long?


I know they say no frivolous disputes.


For example  you keep disputing same account for different reasons or any other reason at all?



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you all mind sharing, why a credit bearu would block you from investigating?


Im really wanting to know.

Edited by Killbadcredit

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A CRA can't "block you from investigating".  However, they can reject any dispute they consider to be "frivolous".


The FCRA guidance under which a CRA can find that a dispute is frivolous is very broad:


Section § 611. Procedure in Case of Disputed Accuracy


Determination that the Dispute is Frivolous or Irrelevant


In general, a consumer reporting agency may terminate a re-investigation of information disputed by a consumer if the agency reasonably determines that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant. This includes a failure by the consumer to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information.


Upon making a determination that a dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, a consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer of such a determination within 5 business days. This must be done by mail or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by any other reasonable means available to the agency. This notice must include the reasons for the determination and identification of any information required to investigate the disputed information, which may consist of a standardized form describing the general nature of such information.


This guidance permits considerable discretion by a CRA to determine when a dispute is frivolous (or irrelevant).  A consumer can seek remedy via suit if a CRA should overstretch in applying that discretion.  If the consumer includes sufficient new information in an updated dispute of a tradeline to warrant re-investigation, but the CRA dismisses it as frivolous merely because there was a prior dispute of the same tradeline that had been previously addressed, a court can find that the CRA failed to meet the requirements of the FCRA and award damages (compensatory and/or punitive) to the consumer. 


A failure by a CRA to consult supporting documents provided by the consumer in entering a revised dispute could be a basis for such a court finding.  But one might expect the court to require that such documents to be substantive in establishing a "new" basis for an investigation (or re-investigation). 


Generally speaking, a CRA can reply upon a credit furnisher's statement that reported information is accurate.  It's not required to be furnished with documentation supporting that assertion.  So, if in response to an investigation the furnisher states that all information disclosed on a tradeline has been confirmed as accurate, a CRA might reasonably reject any and all subsequent disputes re that tradeline as frivolous, absent substantive documentation that gives a reasonable basis to presume otherwise.


Understanding the FCRA (Jones Day)


A reasonable reinvestigation calls for “reasonable diligence” by the CRA (Dennis v. BEH-1, 520 F.3d 1066, 1071 (9th Cir. 2008)). This typically requires asking the furnisher whether the reported information should be modified or deleted based on the consumer’s dispute. There ordinarily is no need for the CRA to require original documentation from the furnisher, and it is typically reasonable for the agency to rely on the furnisher’s verification or modification of the reported information. (See, for example, Fed. Trade Comm’n, 40 Years of Experience with the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, at 76 (July 2011).) But if the CRA knows or should know that the furnisher is unreliable, and if verifying the reported information would not be too costly, then a “reasonable reinvestigation” may in some circumstances require verifying the accuracy of the furnisher’s information (Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220, 225 (3d Cir. 1997)).

However, a CRA is not required to resolve a legal dispute between a furnisher and a consumer by, for example, determining which side has the better interpretation of a contract governing a reported debt (see, for example, Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 892 (9th
Cir. 2010) (observing that a “CRA is not required as part of its reinvestigation duties to provide a legal opinion on the merits”); DeAndrade, 523 F.3d at 68; Krajewski v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., 557 F. Supp. 2d 596, 616-17 (E.D. Pa. 2008)).

If the CRA reasonably determines that a consumer’s dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, the agency may terminate the reinvestigation (15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(3)(A)). This can occur if, for example, the consumer does not give the agency a reason to believe that the reported information is inaccurate, or the consumer’s dispute duplicates a previous dispute (see, for example, Ruffin-Thompkins, 422 F.3d at 608-09). After
terminating the reinvestigation, the agency must notify the consumer within five business days (15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(3)(B)).


Edited by hdporter

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Killbadcredit said:

Thanks for that reliable information hdporter.


Very good and sound info for others to read on.


Glad it's appreciated.  You can tell I was inclined to dig a bit on this one, being intrigued about the general topic and desiring something fleshed out.


As an aside, I joined CB in 2006.  Right around that time there was a court case that was generating a bit of discussion.  I seem to recall it involving a dispute of a mortgage account, reporting with an adverse status.  Experian may have been the CRA involved.


The consumer disputed tradeline content, which was reaffirmed by the lender to Trans Union.  The consumer subsequently responded with sufficient documentation to reasonably challenge the tradeline data as being inaccurate.  Experian stuck to its guns, saying the creditor had affirmed the content.  The consumer sued, the decision was appealed, and when the dust cleared the court hit the CRA with penalties that slapped it half way to China.


Does anyone recall this case (or is someone able to dig it up via search?)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Killbadcredit said:

Wow, never heard this but not surprised. Experian seem to think they have more rights then the consumer who owns the profile. 


Looks like I mixed CRA's in my post.  I started out referencing EX (as you suggest, their behavior puts themselves on the front line as a suspect in any case of CRA abuse ;) ).  However, as I started to mull over the ember of the memory involved, I'm pretty sure I recall a definite reference to TU.  Meant to revise both EX references to TU, but muffed it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries, knock on sold TU have been good to me. They always delete and are easy to talk to. Equifax second and Experian are just a beast I rather not mess with.

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.

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
    • Most Online

    Newest Member

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