Awsome, In Depth Article on the Dispute process

[jack1212]

This is legnthy, but worth every page. It talks about how each CRA operates IN DETAIL!

 

It comfirms the computers, scanners, and the fact the your disputes are never read.

 

With this knowledge, we should learn better methods of disputing.

 

 

"Fair Credit Reporting Act: How it Functions for Consumers and the Economy

 

 

 

 

Jack1212

house testimony bennett.pdf

[jack1212]

Heres a sneak peek.....

 

 

 

The electronic image would be displayed on their screen. They would have an ACIS [Automated Consumer Interview System] screen that they would use. They would then look at the electronic image. They would they would read off the identifying information, enter [. . .] that ID information into the system, access that credit report. At

-23-

that point, they'd be able to determine if they were looking at the correct file. If they were, they'd go further. They'd read the read the letter, they gain an understanding of the issues at hand, and they'd look at the credit report to see if the credit report at that time reflects that. If it does, they would send those particular items from the data furnisher or furnishers. They would request that an investigation be started.

Q Through the ACDV?

A Through ACIS, the Automated Consumer Interview System.

Q Okay. And then [. . .] they would check a claim code and fill in the relevant information box from the dispute letter?

A Correct.

Q And then the ACIS system, Equifax's own system, would then generate an ACDV out of that?

A Correct.

Q And then that is sent by automated means through e-OSCAR?

A Correct.

Q And that outsourced vendor's employee's job for that dispute is now finished?

A Assuming they've addressed everything on the --

Q Right. But they're not -- they're not going to handle whatever response the creditor may provide?

A That's correct.

Q Do DDC employees have telephones on their desk?

A I do not believe so.

Q As part of their compliance with Equifax's procedures, do DDC's employees telephone consumers as part of conducting a reinvestigation?

A They do not.

Q Do they telephone creditors, the furnishers, as part of conducting a reinvestigation?

A They do not.

Q Do they telephone anybody from outside DDC or Equifax as part of conducting a reinvestigation of a consumer dispute?

A They do not.

Q What about e-mailing any of those non-Equifax, non-DDC people, creditor, consumer, or third party?

A They should not be -- they do not e-mail them.

Q And what about fax machines?

A [. . .} They do not have fax machines either.

Q Under what circumstances will a DDC employee forward the consumer's actual dispute letter or documents the consumer provided to the furnisher, the creditor, as part of a reinvestigation?

A A mechanism does not exist to forward the actual documents.

This is the same exact process used by each CRA. The only human intervention is to determine the appropriate two-digit code to enter in a computer message to the creditor. No independent discretion is exercised. No information is “considered†in the reinvestigation.

[tinroofrusted]

So basically, this shows that they AREN'T following the law the way that they are required to.

 

No wonder they can never respond when you request full procedures of the verification process....

[searpr]

Great paper (?) and great find!

[jcs0527]

This makes me furious.

 

Breathe Christy Breathe...

[gressr]

Great information. Thanks for posting.

[MondoMania]

A great read. And infuriating.

 

I guess it's time to enter my occupation on my credit reports as "judge" or "attorney."

[Delerius]

Thank you, Thank You, Thank you!!! That was a great read!

[Eryl Flynn]

Sad how the greed will eventually turn around on them. As they systemicly ignore consumers information like this will come more to light. The way congress works is they tend to take things too far. This means that the longer they let tis boil the more likely congress when it does do some thing will be drastic, heavy handed and overly consumer friendly.

[aadam101]

Hmmm....I think I need to make myself a VIP!!!

[aadam101]

"If the subscriber reports information incorrectly in the Metro 2 code line, it will be entered into each CRA’s credit file incorrectly."

 

Why are there so many discrepanices between the three reports if this is true? It seems to me that they only enter the info once and it should go to all three CRA's.

[KCCutie]

Wow what a way to start a Monday. I read the whole thing and while I suspected most of what was said it really sucks to know it's true. Knowing that whis was brought to the attention of Congress makes me feel a little better but they way they operate if anything gets doneit will be after all my baddies age off naturally. Grrrr.

[Cmarq13]

This article really has me ticked off! It explains exactly what we all suspected. That nothing is ever thoroughly investigated and that the CRA's really DO work for the CA's. How infuriating!

[aadam101]

I feel like the only way to accomplish anything is to dispute with the OC who is not even obligated to accept your dispute! This whole system is setup to screw consumers!

[OddOne]

Note too that the CRAs have lists of people whose public exposure and/or ability to influence policy is such that they can make trouble for the CRA if their reports aren't perfectly accurate. Those people get special attention to ensure everything on their reports is precisely reported. Everyone else is not special and their reports can contain blatantly and obviously fraudulent info and (1) the CRA won't care and (2) the CRA won't do anything about it unless sued.

 

The only way this system will change is if it's destroyed and replaced. And since there's a lot of $ to be made from the status quo, don't expect any major changes unless there's a widescale coordinated effort to drive CRAs into compliance or into bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

 

oO

[EastRidge]

See if I can say this short.

 

Junk Debt Ink buys the debt of Mary Morse.

 

They try to collect from Maria Moore. Maria

files a dispute in detail with the CRA.

 

The CRA employee has only 4 minutes to

"handle" this dispute, so the details of the

letter are ignored.

 

CRA employee brings up the report for Maria

Moore, checks that it has the suspect account,

clicks "not mine" and fires it off to Junk Debt Ink.

 

Junk Debt Ink is sole judge and jury. They say

they are trying to collect from Maria Moore, end

of story. Verified.

 

ER

[aadam101]

See if I can say this short.

 

Junk Debt Ink buys the debt of Mary Morse.

 

They try to collect from Maria Moore. Maria

files a dispute in detail with the CRA.

 

The CRA employee has only 4 minutes to

"handle" this dispute, so the details of the

letter are ignored.

 

CRA employee brings up the report for Maria

Moore, checks that it has the suspect account,

clicks "not mine" and fires it off to Junk Debt Ink.

 

Junk Debt Ink is sole judge and jury. They say

they are trying to collect from Maria Moore, end

of story. Verified.

 

ER

 

That is exactly why most of my letters just state facts.

 

Example:

 

I dispute the following.

 

123 main st (This is not my address)

ABC Collections (this is not mine.)

 

 

Sincerely

 

ME

 

 

 

I don't see any point in bogging them down with information in the initial dispute.

[liquidone]

So all this quoting of case law/decisions and quoting FCRA/FDCPA statutes numbers in our disputes are totally ignored and a waste of time.

 

So does whychats approach of using stationary or other tactics bypass any of this ?

 

Now that we have vented on how appalling this is, is the next step to brainstorm some counter tactics ?

 

handwritten disputes ?

methods to get on the "vip list"

go straight to lawsuits, using this info against them ?

[backtobusiness]

A great read. And infuriating.

 

I guess it's time to enter my occupation on my credit reports as "judge" or "attorney."

We have been advised by many on this board not to sign our dispute letters to CA. However, in reading

the article about the 'Dispute Process' (might be reading it wrong) all documents pertaining to the dispute

must be furnished to the creditor or furnisher. If so, then this would defit the non signing of dispute

letters as they would have copy of signature through disputes with CRA.

[honesty]

WOW!! Great read.

[santacruz]

26 under E-Oscar. And of these twenty six choices, the CRAs use the same four codes for nearly 90% of all disputes, a fact the CDIA emails evidence they sought to conceal from the FTC. The percentage breakdown for the CRAs minimum number of codes is as follows:

Not his/hers 30.5%

Disputes present/previous Account Status/History 21.2%

Claims Inaccurate Information. Did not provide specific dispute 16.8%

Disputes amounts. 8.8%

Claims account closed by consumer. 7.0%

As the CRA testimony cited above evidences, there is no mechanism in E-Oscar, used now for 100% of all creditor tradeline disputes, by which the CRA agent can or will forward documents to the furnisher or receive documents from the furnisher. Any claim to the contrary is not truthful.

[KCCutie]

A great read. And infuriating.

 

I guess it's time to enter my occupation on my credit reports as "judge" or "attorney."

We have been advised by many on this board not to sign our dispute letters to CA. However, in reading

the article about the 'Dispute Process' (might be reading it wrong) all documents pertaining to the dispute

must be furnished to the creditor or furnisher. If so, then this would defit the non signing of dispute

letters as they would have copy of signature through disputes with CRA.

 

No I think you read that wrong. Right now the poeple who view your disputes don't hve any means of sending your original dispute to anyone. They don't have e-mail or fax machines or even phones for that matter and even if they did they only have 3 minutes for each one trying to send more info would take valuable time. It was suggested that sending a copy of the sipute would help fix the problem but it's not happening now.

[shun_hun]

Thank you for posting this important article. Although it makes me angry on a Monday morning. But more determined

[DecembersBest]

I'm DYING to hear WhyChat's response to this.

[Uncle Leo]

That is exactly why most of my letters just state facts.

 

Example:

 

I dispute the following.

 

123 main st (This is not my address)

ABC Collections (this is not mine.)

 

 

Sincerely

 

ME

 

I don't see any point in bogging them down with information in the initial dispute.

 

Exactly. Short and sweet. I've never understood quoting all kinds of legal stuff. We're not impressing or intimidating anybody. I will usually whip in an "according to applicable law", though, just to let someone know that I am aware that I do have rights and that there are laws out their designed to protect me.

 

So all this quoting of case law/decisions and quoting FCRA/FDCPA statutes numbers in our disputes are totally ignored and a waste of time.

 

I think so.

 

So does whychats approach of using stationary or other tactics bypass any of this ?

 

I have my doubts. I envision handwritten letters being given to some bottom-of-the-barrel lackey with ZERO authority to type it into the system and it still gets coded the same as all the others. Then, you run the risk of it getting entered incorrectly.