Can a CRA sell information to another CRA?

[breana902]

I am reading the FCRA and trying to figure this one out. This ties back into Dolan and the reporting of BKs and judgements. I don't think Dolan is in the business of obtaining this information and handing it out for free. They state they are a CRA on their web page. So that got me to thinking -is what they are doing allowed under the FCRA? My head is starting to hurt trying to figure this one out! Anyone have an ideas or thoughts about this?

[Susan]

I was thinking about this last night. When you dispute the public info. let's take a BK for example, it comes back verified. Okay, now you send out a proc. request. You get "it was verified by the furnisher xxx court." Now it gets sticky-you and I know that the furnisher is not the court - it could be Dolan, Pacer, etc... But aren't the CRA's actually the furnisher as the are the ones going out there "collecting" this data? Just like Macys would collect your data and place it on your report there by making them the furnisher. So how could the same activity of collecting public data and placing it on your report not make Equifax, EX, or TU not the furnisher?

 

I was thinking about it because I have a vacated judgement on my report. Yeah I could send the paperwork into Experian who is the only CRA that keeps verifying it but why should I have to? If I have to I will. But I want to see how many hoops they will jump thru just to keep the negative info there. I know it sounds stupid as I'm sure its harming my score. But what I'm going to do is let it go maybe another month or two and keep disputing it. Then I'm going to send all of the "remains" letters to them with a copy of the letter from the judge stating it is vacated, has been for the past 6 months.

 

We know that Dolan, etc. is SUPPLYING the CRA with the information but maybe the key word we keep passing by is who is FURNISHING the info for our credit report. I can help but think that the furnisher is Experian, EQ, TU and not Dolan. Dolan is a supplier. The CRA has to pay for this info and place it on the report. Whereas Macys supplies it to the CRA for a fee.

 

I don't know maybe just tooooo much thinking and the Tylenol PM's kicking in!!!!!

 

Susan

[breana902]

We know that Dolan, etc. is SUPPLYING the CRA with the information but maybe the key word we keep passing by is who is FURNISHING the info for our credit report. I can help but think that the furnisher is Experian, EQ, TU and not Dolan. Dolan is a supplier. The CRA has to pay for this info and place it on the report. Whereas Macys supplies it to the CRA for a fee.

 

I don't know maybe just tooooo much thinking and the Tylenol PM's kicking in!!!!!

 

Susan

 

Yes, but if Dolan is the supplier -they are also the furnisher of info. So that leads to two questions. Can a CRA sell info, and can a CRA buy info? So, Macys is a furnisher which Dolan also acts as - so yes they can sell the info by providing a fee to the CRA. But, if Dolan is also operating as a CRA - that kind of muddies it for me. What is to stop all of them from selling information to each other? From what i have read - it seems like ex,eq and TU only alert each other for a fraud alert - they don't share anything else. Maybe it is too much thinking, and too many late nights but this is starting to bug me!

[JerseyBaby]

As a side note, if you buy a 3 bureau report from 1 of the cras, don't they

have to buy the other 2 reports before reselling them to you?

Does this constitute 1 cra selling info to another?

 

Do you think they ever compare the info on their report with the others?

 

Just thinking out loud.

 

__________

JerseyBaby

[breana902]

As a side note, if you buy a 3 bureau report from 1 of the cras, don't they

have to buy the other 2 reports before reselling them to you?

Does this constitute 1 cra selling info to another?

 

Do you think they ever compare the info on their report with the others?

 

Just thinking out loud.

 

__________

JerseyBaby

 

Don't know if they have to buy the other 2 reports, but even if they do - they aren't buying it to place info on their own report, they are just buying it to provide the info to the consumer.

[SassyinAz]

I was thinking about this last night. When you dispute the public info. let's take a BK for example, it comes back verified. Okay, now you send out a proc. request. You get "it was verified by the furnisher xxx court." Now it gets sticky-you and I know that the furnisher is not the court - it could be Dolan, Pacer, etc... But aren't the CRA's actually the furnisher as the are the ones going out there "collecting" this data? Just like Macys would collect your data and place it on your report there by making them the furnisher. So how could the same activity of collecting public data and placing it on your report not make Equifax, EX, or TU not the furnisher?

 

I was thinking about it because I have a vacated judgement on my report. Yeah I could send the paperwork into Experian who is the only CRA that keeps verifying it but why should I have to? If I have to I will. But I want to see how many hoops they will jump thru just to keep the negative info there. I know it sounds stupid as I'm sure its harming my score. But what I'm going to do is let it go maybe another month or two and keep disputing it. Then I'm going to send all of the "remains" letters to them with a copy of the letter from the judge stating it is vacated, has been for the past 6 months.

 

We know that Dolan, etc. is SUPPLYING the CRA with the information but maybe the key word we keep passing by is who is FURNISHING the info for our credit report. I can help but think that the furnisher is Experian, EQ, TU and not Dolan. Dolan is a supplier. The CRA has to pay for this info and place it on the report. Whereas Macys supplies it to the CRA for a fee.

 

I don't know maybe just tooooo much thinking and the Tylenol PM's kicking in!!!!!

 

Susan

 

oh susan, hold up hold up,

 

You've requested their procedures, yes? yes -- check

 

There's a tactic buried here somewhere, I believe it was a radi8 letter, I'll find it for you.

 

Don't send them anything, oh nooooooooooooooo, play this one!!!!!!!!

 

Off searching unless radi8 is REALLY sweet and links in the meantime.

 

Sassy

[Susan]

Okay, try it this way-

 

xxx Court has this info on you - they do not report it - they are not the furnisher.

 

Dolan has this info on you - they do not report it - they are not the furnisher.

 

EQ BUYS the info on you - they DO report it - they are the furnisher.

 

Dolan can gather public records, just like you or I could go to the court house and gather public records. And I'm sure if we wanted to we could get into the business of gathering and selling them to people just like the many internet sites that we have now do. If we sell this information does that make us a furnisher? No. Dolan has many entities that our housed under one roof. I agree that the fact that they are a CRA and the fact that the SELL public info. are conflicting but it would depend on the make up of the company. Dolan can be a CRA and maybe have a sister company that collects info & sells it for profit. It would really depend on how the company is structured.

 

What we have to do is deal with the furnisher. And just like with a collection agency, they are deciding to place that tradeline on your CR. They then become the furnisher. They might have bought this info from the OC, but they are the ones furnishing the info. And if you ask for validation, they have to give it to you or they can't collect. Usually resulting in the deleation of your tradeline, right. And that's not where the info originated. It origianted with the OC. Just like our public records are originated in the courts. But the courts are not furnishers so we have to turn where???????

 

My guess is to try and throw it back into the laps of the CRA's that have opted to place the info on your report.

 

Susan

[UPANDCOMMING]

It is illegal for CRA'S to share infomation, ... no PP, otherwise there would only be ONE CRA.

 

Regarding the public records issue the FCRA was written so each CRA is on it's own regarding gathering information: There are some opinion letters on the FTC site regarding what the PROPER procedure is for GATHERING information.

 

 

I think you are on the RIGHT track with the Procederal Request: If you can prove that they are not following proper procedures in GATHERING information(regardless if the information is correct or incorrect) it should not be on the CREDIT REPORT( I would think).

 

Maybe the following would work: ... just brainstorming.

 

 

1. Dispute public record.

 

2. Send Procedural request on the information.

 

3. If they say COURT HOUSE submitted information get letter from court house they are submitting info. ... Which will most likly state they don't

 

4. If they say DOLAN, send DOLAN letter stating what is their PP under FCRA, send them letter (from FTC) that they are violating FCRA by reporting information:

 

 

The only way that DOLAN can GATHER information for the CRA's is they have to somehow meet the FCRA requirement! I still don't see how they can do that unless they are own or subcontract out their employees to the CRA'S?????

 

5. Then take BOTH the CRA and DOLAN to court for not gathering infomation properly.

 

 

 

Just an idea.

 

 

I still think the only way we are going to answer the question whether DOLAN or other CRA's which specialize in public records are ALLOWED to submit their information to CRA'S is to nail down the proper procedure for gathering public records. From the CRA's point of view, it must be very expensive to keep their computers updated with the proper public records. We as INFORMED consumers may be able to use this to our advantage to FORCE them to remove public records from our credit reports if we can prove that they are violation proper procedures: Which it is starting to look like they are.

[Susan]

Sassy-

 

I did request the procedures that's what had me thinking last night. I got the "about our verification process letter" yeaterday in response to my proc. letter.

 

That's why I'm not sending them anything. Although, I would really like to have the "unfortunately, we could not use the information that you sent us" letter to complete my set. Which I'm sure I'd get after sending them the letter from the judge. I may just wait it out till x-mas and ask Santa for it!

 

What do you think???

 

Susan

[JerseyBaby]

How about this...thinking and typing as idea gels...if Dolan is the entity

that gathers and sells public record info and Dolan is a cra as stipulated

on it's web site and it's illegal for 1 cra to sell info to another, then it

should be illegal for Dolan to sell info to the other cras. Right?

 

I know it's been discussed that Dolan may have subsidiaries that do

different things within the company, but it seems to me that one part is

doing the gathering and selling. That part, because it's storing the info,

is the cra.

 

Any thoughts?

 

__________

JerseyBaby

[SassyinAz]

You don't have to send them anything at all, Susan, if you don't want to.

 

This is what radi8 did that I was remembering:

 

Dear Trans Union;

 

I have given you five opportunities to correct invalid information on my report. Each time you have either verified non-existent information, or refused to investigate at all. I warned you previously that I do not intend to play around with this any longer.

 

I have in my posession documentation that the account that you have verified as accurate does not in fact exist at all, and that no verification request has ever been received.

 

You obviously have no proceedures in place to prevent inaccurate reporting, and have made no attempt to correct your errors after they have been pointed out.

 

Therefore, 48 hours from now, I intend to file suit against you for these and other violations of federal law. I will file for statutory damages as well as actual damages and legal fees.

 

After judgement is awarded, I will immediately notify Dun & Bradstreet

of the judgement against you and begin the process of attaching property as necessary.

 

You may contact me within 48 hours should you wish to settle this before

filing.

 

Andie

cc: your lawyer

 

Wait for the call, then suggest that since their "verification" is so poor, the only way you will drop the suit is if they delete all inaccurate info on your report. Then give them the accounts to delete.

 

If they don't call, then file. They are in the wrong. Dead wrong.

Getting served will get them to find the phone.

 

This is nearly an exact copy of the letter I sent TU. They pretty much blew me off over the phone, but did listen to the "other" accounts that were not accurate. next day the accounts were gone.

I never had to file.

 

Any one else have any thoughts?

 

Get all your stuff in dispute though, because if they can't follow reasonable procedures for 1 TL, SURELY, they can't claim that they have on the others as well.

 

It is from this thread:

 

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...der=asc&start=0

 

If you are willing to sue them, you could save that as your last card as well and not send it to them before filing. Just build your trail to show that they don't ever verify as required -- and you have the documentation to confirm it.

 

The last person I read that was in this pretty spot, sent his documentation to the CRA, the TL was then deleted. He THEN wanted to sue -- too late afterwards.

 

UpandComing, there is another thread that needs to be linked to this one, that addresses just what you are reinventing:

 

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...opic.php?t=8136

 

What is your basis for saying it is illegal for CRA's to share information?

 

Sassy

[breana902]

The whole thing stinks to me. They must be covering their butts somehow. Just have to keep digging to find out. Could that be why they were bought out by lexis? I have a letter out to Dolan now - about the whole entire CRA thing. I did have 2 judgements deleted and then reinserted and a letter from TU stating that the court certified the information as accurate. One more thing for me to think about if I have to go to court with TU - maybe pull Dolan into the mix. Kind of hoping I go to court - it should be very interesting!

 

I am going to link this thread to the furnishers of info thread here:

 

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...opic.php?t=8136

[Susan]

Upandcomming- See that's where I think we're missing the boat. The CRA is on it's own when gathering this info. An OC can pick and choose which CRA to place the info on. Because they furnish the info. Dolan is not furnishing the info-they are selling the info. The CRA is furnishing the info, they (the CRA) is choosing to place this on your report thereby making them the furnisher.

 

As discussed in the other thread - you need to dispute this info as it is incorrect. Well, who placed it there to begin with. It was the CRA.

 

Just like with your Macy's account - you need to dispute this info as it is incorrect. Who placed it there to begin with. It was Macy's.

 

Susan

[Susan]

Thanks for the link Sassy. It looks like a great letter. I'll give it a try. Only one more bad thing left on that report besides the judgement and I think I hit Experian up with this letter after they finish the "dispute process" on the other trade line. Gotta love that 30 day wait for verification!!

 

Susan

[UPANDCOMMING]

Upandcomming- See that's where I think we're missing the boat. The CRA is on it's own when gathering this info. An OC can pick and choose which CRA to place the info on. Because they furnish the info. Dolan is not furnishing the info-they are selling the info. The CRA is furnishing the info, they (the CRA) is choosing to place this on your report thereby making them the furnisher.

 

As discussed in the other thread - you need to dispute this info as it is incorrect. Well, who placed it there to begin with. It was the CRA.

 

Just like with your Macy's account - you need to dispute this info as it is incorrect. Who placed it there to begin with. It was Macy's.

 

Susan

 

I think you're right and I think we are getting close: The CRA'S are on their own in getting public information. I think the only reason they are gettting it from DOLAN is because it is a COST EFFECTIVENESS thing.

 

I'm going to post the FTC opinion letter.

 

I still think the way to get them though is to prove they are violating the FCRA. ....let me see if I can find the letter.

[Susan]

Sorry Sassy - I see send it while I have the other dispute going. Will do it in the morning! Tylenol PM's kicking in and must go to bed!!! Can't spell!

 

Thanks again for the letter -

 

Susan

[SassyinAz]

 

Just wanted to give you the mop, Breana, and say thank you!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Makes me crazy discombobulated theads.

 

The problem is though, with the CRAs, they are not accurately disclosing to you the furnisher of the information.

 

In order to reinsert something it has to be certified, nodding yes, they are saying though that THE court certified it, the court didn't.

 

That is the problem, not that Dolan has their butts covered.

 

Susan, should that be true, and I'm not saying that it isn't, but if it is the problem still is you have been denied your right to submit a dispute directly with the furnisher -- someone is responsible for the information and whoever that someone is, can also be held legally responsible for the information.

 

So for you especially, as you have a public record that is obviously not reporting correctly, WHO are you going to dispute with, as is your right -- the CRA's by not truthfully disclosing are side-stepping and taking away your right to dispute with the furnisher.

 

Sassy

[Susan]

I think we need to come up with a dispute letter directed at the CRA as a furnisher. And somehow apply the FCRA to that dispute forcing EX, EQ or TU to have to put up or delete.

 

Susan

[SassyinAz]

UpandComing,

 

The FTC letters are all cut and pasted and linked in the other thread, will ya read it already!!!!!!!

 

hmmmmmm Susan, ok,

 

This ties into then that the CRA's have to go further than even the furnisher, the original source, once a TL is disputed -- that could work!

 

You've read those cases, Richardson, Stevenson, Cushman?????

 

Sassy

[SassyinAz]

Breana,

 

You received all this when they reinserted???????? I just can't believe TU would do it right, well nevermind, they follow the rules when it serves them

 

(5) Treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable information.

 

(A) In general. If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) of any information disputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the consumer's file or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation.

 

( Requirements relating to reinsertion of previously deleted material.

 

(i) Certification of accuracy of information. If any information is deleted from a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph (A), the information may not be reinserted in the file by the consumer reporting agency unless the person who furnishes the information certifies that the information is complete and accurate.

 

(ii) Notice to consumer. If any information that has been deleted from a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph (A) is reinserted in the file, the consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer of the reinsertion in writing not later than 5 business days after the reinsertion or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by any other means available to the agency.

 

(iii) Additional information. As part of, or in addition to, the notice under clause (ii), a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer in writing not later than 5 business days after the date of the reinsertion

 

(I) a statement that the disputed information has been reinserted;

 

(II) the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available, or of any furnisher of information that contacted the consumer reporting agency, in connection with the reinsertion of such information; and

 

(III) a notice that the consumer has the right to add a statement to the consumer's file disputing the accuracy or completeness of the disputed information.

[UPANDCOMMING]

I think we need to come up with a dispute letter directed at the CRA as a furnisher. And somehow apply the FCRA to that dispute forcing EX, EQ or TU to have to put up or delete.

 

Susan

 

Here is the FTC letter:

 

 

I'm sure you can find something in here that prove the CRA's are in violation by reporting 3rd party information.

 

 

Btw, I think you are going the right track regarding a letter.

 

I would write the letter some what as follows:

 

 

It has come to my attention that the COURT xxxxxx doesn't report information to CRA'S and/or to your company. According to the FCRA it is a voilation to buy 3rd party information and report it on a consumers CREDIT REPORT. The proper procedure for "GATHERING" and report public information is outlined in the following FTC opinion letter. It has also come to my attention that you are purchasing and or using DOLAN's information and reporting on my credit report: That is a flagrant violation of the FCRA: ... as stated in the FTC opinion letter.

 

 

Since your are not reporting information that was properly "GATHERED" according to the FCRA, I'm asking that you remove the following TL from my credit report otherwise I will have to use the court system to sue your company for defaming my character and damaging my credit worthiness. If you feel that your company is accordance to the FCRA in properly gathering the above mentioned PUBLIC RECORD I would like you to explain in writing how your company is in accordance to the FCRA.

 

 

 

... Thank You

 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/leblanc.htm

[UPANDCOMMING]

2. The status of your company's record searchers.

 

You ask whether the individuals who search records for your company are themselves CRAs. You describe these people as part-time truck drivers, retired persons, homemakers, and small business people. We assume that these individuals are paid either for the time that they spend collecting information or on a piecework basis.

 

Based on the information you have provided, we believe that these individuals are your company's agents and are not themselves CRAs. One of the key definitional requirements of a CRA is to provide reports to "third parties." When your company's record searchers deal with the company, they are not providing information to a third party; rather, their relationship with your company is a type of employment relationship. The practical effect of this is significant. Since your searchers are not CRAs, they do not have any of the duties imagined by your letter.

 

 

 

So I guess the only way that a CRA can report PUBLIC INFORMATION is if DOLAN is acting as an agent. Since it is selling its information it can't????

 

 

I guess AGENT is the key the word !!!!

[ArmySarge6]

And I thought I was the only one up late this morning.

 

Just bumping so I can find this after I get some sleep in the morning so I can decipher some of this.

 

By the way, I sent my letter to Dolan this morning.

[UPANDCOMMING]

Bumping for more info.

[breana902]

Reply to DHs fax to Dolan (the letter sent in posted in the CRA as furnishers of info thread - I will also copy this letter there)

 

 

08/28/03 THU 11:32 FAX 4055526105 HOGAN INFORMATION ®002

 

Bats Sen/ices D/V/sicn '<WO N.W. E

Ofc:af!o.-T73 City Off 731 IS

 

Pft: M05; 302-S95-? rSX: «05/ 302-6302

 

08/28/03

Dear Mr.

I received your letter and I am sorry that you feel the last response was inadequate, please allow me to clarify the situation. Identifying information must be provided that would allow me to discern Ms. records from any other consumer with the same or similar name and address information. Information can not be sent out to anyone unless this information is provided. I would think that you would agree that this would be a serious breach of confidentiality. These measures are in place to protect Ms. as well as other consumers.

I understand Ms. (spelled my last name wrong here!) concern and will be happy to provide what records, if any, that we show, as soon as I have received the information requested. Despite your belief to the contrary, Dolan/LexisNexis Public Records Data Services is not a credit reporting agency, we are simply an information resource. We have no access to her or any other consumer's personal credit file. We have access only to bulk data which is filed at any designated courthouse.

As identifying information has not been provided, no information can be released at this point. Dolan/LexisNexis does not collect judgment information in the state of New Jersey, so if what you are disputing is a judgment ftom this state, then you have the wrong vendor. As no evidence of the information you are disputing has been given mere is no way to know if the information located in the Dolan/LexisNexis database is correct or not. I have enclosed a dispute request form for completion and signature. I await identifying information so that a dispute may be pursued and resolved in this case.

 

Sim

Kim R. Davis

Client & Consumer Relations

 

If anyone wants the dispute form, let me know and I will email it to you. I can't figure out how to copy it to here. I scanned it as a word document - but it didn't scan properly. I don't know how to copy a picture to here.