Sassy- More Furnishers of Info ????s

[smontoya5]

OK- I'm WIDE awake now! After reading this thread:

 

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...opic.php?t=4128

 

I've been working on both mine and my husband's reports for 7 months now. Some of the tough one's left are tls that have already been deleted from other CRA reports or report 3 different ways.

 

OK-

Now, do you think this only works if they're reporting it differently between 2 or more CRAs?

 

Or,

say I disputed something with EX (also being reported to TU and EQ) and EX deleted. TU and EQ verified.

 

Now, could I then say "hey- you couldn't verify with EX! You should have told TU and EQ to delete, as well".

 

Doesn't seem quite right....

 

Another scenario-

 

Joint account being reported 2 all 3 CRAs on both mine and my husband's reports. Here's how it's reporting:

 

EX Paid, never late ($10,000 balance- both of our reports. Hasn't been updated since September)

 

TU Deleted from both

 

EQ Deleted from dh's report

$7000 unpaid chargeoff on mine as of 8/02

 

OK- can I get the OC on the fact that they (1) couldn't verify dh's TL when we disputed it on both our reports at the same time?

[SassyinAz]

Smontoya: OK- I'm WIDE awake now! After reading this thread:

 

<http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4128>

LOL, oopssssssssss sorry, I went to bed after waking you up :shock:

 

I've been working on both mine and my husband's reports for 7 months now. Some of the tough one's left are tls that have already been deleted from other CRA reports or report 3 different ways.

Nodding, that is exactly the scenario you want to address.

 

There are 2 ways you can dispute under the FCRA -- with the CRA directly (that is where these requirements kick in) and/or with the furnisher of information directly (OC's CA's or whoever is providing the information).

 

The CRA's aren't information furnishers (well they can be BUT that doesn't apply to the big3), they are reporters of information -- different requirements for each.

 

So, if you have previously disputed a TL with any CRA and it was updated or deleted, the furnisher that updated that information for the 1 CRA in response to that dispute, has to notify and update the information with all other CRA's they provided it to.

 

They are lazy and don't do their jobs. They respond to disputes as they are received, if they respond at all, 1 at a time.

 

Instead, what they are supposed to do, is respond to the CRA you disputed with specifically and THEN take the extra step of updating (or having removed) the same information with all other CRA's they reported the information to (that they now KNOW is either inaccurate or should be removed, they know it because you disputed with 1) to.

 

OK-

Now, do you think this only works if they're reporting it differently between 2 or more CRAs?

Or,

say I disputed something with EX (also being reported to TU and EQ) and EX deleted. TU and EQ verified.

It would work for both. If the information was updated on one report, it must be updated on all reports. If it was deleted from one, they must follow through and remove it from all.

 

Now, could I then say "hey- you couldn't verify with EX! You should have told TU and EQ to delete, as well".

Well the CRA's delete the information if the dispute is not responded to, usually, though it could be as you described but remember they are lazy. But yes, that's the idea.

 

Only you don't care why it was deleted (maybe they didn't respond) -- just that it was deleted (or if 1 was updated and you want it updated the same on all) -- you want deletion though. It was deleted from one CRA based on a dispute you initiated and they were required to follow through and have that same information removed from EACH of the CRA's they reported to.

 

I disputed TL AAA with CRA 1 (I'd not tell them which specifically -- they're supposed to know) of which you were notified. Based on my dispute the TL was deleted (or updated) from CRA 1.

In response to that dispute with CRA1, you are required to delete (or update) the same TL information you provided to CRA2 and CRA3 per section 623.

 

The information you are furnishing to CRA2 and CRA3 must also be deleted for you to meet your requirements as an information furnisher under this section (based on the results of the dispute with CRA1).

 

Another scenario-

 

Joint account being reported 2 all 3 CRAs on both mine and my husband's reports. Here's how it's reporting:

 

EX Paid, never late ($10,000 balance- both of our reports. Hasn't been updated since September)

 

TU Deleted from both

 

EQ Deleted from dh's report

$7000 unpaid chargeoff on mine as of 8/02

 

OK- can I get the OC on the fact that they (1) couldn't verify dh's TL when we disputed it on both our reports at the same time?

Yep.

 

Dear OC,

 

You were notified of my dispute of your information on JOINT account # by CRA1. As a result of that dispute, the information was deleted from OUR respective reports with CRA1.

 

As a furnisher of information, at the time of that investigation, you were also required to remove the same information from ALL other CRA's that you reported to.

 

You failed to properly complete your investigation and provide the results to each of the CRA's you report to in violation of FCRA, Section 623, Responsibilities of Furnishers of Information.

 

I am not requesting a new investigation, I am requesting deletion of the information from CRA2 and CRA3 as you were required and failed to do.

 

To cure these violations, please have the TL removed from CRA2 and CRA3 on EACH of our respective reports -- Smontoya and Mr.

Smontoya.

 

Sassy

[smontoya5]

Woohoo! I'm excited! I'm at work now and can't wait to get home and get started on this!

 

I'll report back as soon as I get a response.

 

Thanks Sassy!

[breana902]

Oh - me too! I have another letter to write! LOL!!! Thanks for the info!

[SassyinAz]

very cool, both of you!!!!!!!

 

Be sure to update, please!

 

Type on, lol, don't forget those green cards :wink: .

 

Sassy

[breana902]

Ok, before I send this letter out I have a question. The TL I want deleted states paid after charge-off. Now, I did pay them in December - but that was before I found the boards and knew to ask for a deletion or positive TL. Didn't even know it was on my reports. Anyway - it has always come back verified for me - but was deleted from 2 reports within a week for my husband. I disputed mine about a month before his. Now - can I request deletion on my reports - based on the deletion from his? Also - what I worry about is that it will go back on his reports and stay on mine. So - does this letter still stand since they verified mine - but removed his - or should I just send it out for him to get it deleted from the third one?

[SassyinAz]

Ok, before I send this letter out I have a question. The TL I want deleted states paid after charge-off. Now, I did pay them in December - but that was before I found the boards and knew to ask for a deletion or positive TL. Didn't even know it was on my reports. Anyway - it has always come back verified for me - but was deleted from 2 reports within a week for my husband. I disputed mine about a month before his. Now - can I request deletion on my reports - based on the deletion from his? Also - what I worry about is that it will go back on his reports and stay on mine. So - does this letter still stand since they verified mine - but removed his - or should I just send it out for him to get it deleted from the third one?

 

Yes, you can request deletion on yours as well. If it was joint they surely know or are consciously avoiding knowing, as the wording goes.

 

They can't reinsert something without following the procedures for that. I don't think I've ever read of that happening.

 

Sassy

[breana902]

Thank you Sassy!

[NanaSi]

Yup, this is big stuff...as I'm sitting here dealing with my last neg on CE that has been deleted from the other 2...if it comes back verified there, I'm gonna do this...

 

thanks! SMontoya, please keep us updated on this!

[breana902]

Sassy,

 

One more question if you don't mind. What if they don't remove the TL for the other CRA's - then what? Or should I worry about that if it doesn't happen? How long to give them to remove the TL? I have others that I can send this letter to also. The first is typed up and ready to go!

[SassyinAz]

Sassy,

 

One more question if you don't mind.  What if they don't remove the TL for the other CRA's - then what?  Or should I worry about that if it doesn't happen?  How long to give them to remove the TL?  I have others that I can send this letter to also.  The first is typed up and ready to go!

 

Give them 30 days but send CRRR and once you get the green card back, dispute again, to force the overlapping requirements.

 

If they don't you could ummmm:

 

Do an intent to sue

 

Send them another letter, the same saying you didn't get a response, giving them a shorter time frame AND including new violations because they likely didn't mark the information as disputed, maybe pulled a report to take a peek.

 

We could come up with a nuttier than nutty nutcase -- going postal, but it would be FCRA instead LOL

 

File complaints with everyone and their brother and get noisy. Both State's AG's, BBB, whoever licenses, FTC and copy all those complaints back at 'em.

 

Filing in small claims court always gets someone's attention.

 

Sassy

[breana902]

Update on fleet account. Saw a notification on equifax this am. Fleet didn't delete, but the rate status was changed from a 9 to a 1. It isn't updated on the credit report I pulled from them today - but it is there on the notification. Will have to wait and see if it changed on the credit report tomorrow. This could be good!

[breana902]

Update - not good. TL was updated to R1 and then the next day went back to R9. Anyway, I sent the letter and received a response today. The item is reporting correctly and will stay as is. The TL was removed from 2 of my husbands reports, but stayed on all 3 of mine. Now what?

[SassyinAz]

Breana,

 

Hmmmmmm, grrrrrrrrr

 

Do you have records of other disputes before sending the letter? I'm thinking if so, you should consider summarizing them all sending to the CRA's with LKH's letter or it spawn for OC's.

 

I'd send again to the OC, if you aren't yet willing to file suit, and perhaps even so depending on if you have records of other disputes with a copy of the FTC's mandated for distribution to all furnishers, summary of responsibilities.

 

Sassy

 

I'm going to fetch you some letters now, so you can see if they fit or close with your other documentation, if any.

[SassyinAz]

ok, here's LKH's letter spawned I love that word, with his additional suggestion at the end.

 

 

«Your Name»

«Address1»

«Address2»

«City», «State» «Zip»

 

«Company»

«Address1»

«Address2»

«City», «State» «Zip»

 

«Date»

 

RE: Account #_________/Original Creditor’s Name

 

Dear Sir/Madame:

 

This is a request for deletion of a disputed item. I have attempted to have this inaccurate and incomplete reporting verified by the furnisher of information to no avail. I am respectfully requesting that (CRA name), do what is legally mandated by the FCRA and delete the account listing from my consumer file.

 

Name of Creditor/Agency, Account #_________

 

On <<date>>, (CRA name) received a notice of dispute from me resulting in (CRA name) advising me that the account had been verified.

 

Knowing that the information could not in fact be verified, I proceeded to dispute the information and request verification directly from the furnisher of information for which the FCRA provides for.

 

On «date», «original creditor>> received a request for verification from me. Attached is a copy of that letter along with the U.S. Post Office return receipt showing they did indeed receive the request. As of today, xx/xx/xx, they have failed to provide any proof or respond in any way.

 

On «date», I sent a second letter. Again, I have received no response. Attached is a copy of the letter and the U.S. Post Office showing they did receive that letter.

 

On «date», I sent yet another letter. Again, I received no response. Attached is a copy of that letter as well as a copy of the U.S. Post Office return receipt.

 

The FCRA states that information reported must be accurate and complete; updated and verifiable. It also provides a dispute mechanism initiated by the consumer through the consumer reporting agency and through the furnisher of information.

 

As detailed above, I have disputed the information for the referenced account, with both (CRA name) and the furnisher of information directly. I have exhausted all recourses provided for resolution of erroneous information and still the information remains on my consumer report.

 

The FCRA provides a cause of action for an individual consumer as well as penalties and liabilities for both consumer reporting agencies and furnishers of information for non-compliance as violations of its provisions.

 

It is evident that the information reported cannot be verifed and therefore must be deleted as required.

 

When a debt is disputed under either mechanism, a notation must be entered on the debtor's report showing the item as in dispute. Again, this was not done and is a further violation of the FCRA.

 

Pursuant to the FCRA, if no proof of debt exists and the information reported is not verifiable, it may not be furnished to the consumer reporting agenices nor reported by them. The FCRA also states that consumer reporting agencies must accept written proof from the debtor.

 

Therefore, I am not asking for an investigation to be done, I am requesting that the entry be deleted in its' entirety as there is no proof of its' existence and the information presently reported is not verifiable, as evidenced by my attached documented proof.

 

Sincerely,

 

«Signature»

«Your Name»

 

*******************************

This is additional from LKH in response to the spawning, definately include it, you've given them enough chances:

 

I obviously found it, lol. Good job Sassy. I think it's a great transformation from ca to oc violations.

 

The only thing I might add at the end, and only if someone is going to follow thru with it is this:

 

The time for investigations is long past. My legal rights have been violated over and over again. As I have the laws of the FDCPA and FCRA to back up every claim I have made, this listing needs to be deleted and permanently cloaked from my record. Should you fail to do this within the next 15 days, I will not hesitate to have my attorney file a claim of action in xx court on day 16. Please follow the law and immediately delete this listing. It will save us both a lot of time and expense.

 

**********************************

And, you have the additional violation under Section 623, requiring notification to all CRA's initially furnished the information.

 

Sassy

[SassyinAz]

Here's the other one:

 

your name

address field 1

address field two

 

month day, year

 

name of original creditor

address field one

address field two

 

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED #

RE: ACCOUNT NUMBER AS IT APPEARS ON YOUR REPORT

 

Dear Ford crackheads:

 

You are inaccurately and incompletely furnishing negative information regarding the above-referenced account to the major CRA's in violation of the reporting requirements of the FCRA and for which you are responsible.

 

I have previously disputed the above-referenced account and its reported information with the consumer reporting agencies, without resolution.

 

I dispute your information in its entirety and request evidentiary documentation that substantiates the information you have furnished and its reporting, including the required commencement of delinquency date, as verification of the information you have provided and its present reporting.

 

For your benefit and as a gesture of my goodwill, I have enclosed the FTC's required informational disclosure entitled, Credit Reports: What Information Furnishers need to know which defines and clarifies your responsibilities and potential liability as an information furnisher.

 

Should you not be able or willing to provide me with the substantiating documentation as verification of the present reporting, to cure these violations within the next 30 days, please have the information deleted from each of the consumer reporting agencies that you have furnished it to as required.

 

Should you again fail to fulfill your mandated duties and responsibilities, I will have no other recourse but to consider bringing legal action against Ford for its continued non-compliance and violation of the FCRA, under which is provided an individual cause of action for enforcing its provisions.

 

I expect final resolution of this matter within 30 days and look forward to receiving written confirmation of my request as well as written confirmation of Ford's intended actions.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

**Print and include it: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspub...ubs/infopro.htm

[fullspeed1]

Dear OC,

 

You were notified of my dispute of your information on JOINT account # by CRA1. As a result of that dispute, the information was deleted from OUR respective reports with CRA1.

 

As a furnisher of information, at the time of that investigation, you were also required to remove the same information from ALL other CRA's that you reported to.

 

You failed to properly complete your investigation and provide the results to each of the CRA's you report to in violation of FCRA, Section 623, Responsibilities of Furnishers of Information.

 

I am not requesting a new investigation, I am requesting deletion of the information from CRA2 and CRA3 as you were required and failed to do.

 

To cure these violations, please have the TL removed from CRA2 and CRA3 on EACH of our respective reports -- Smontoya and Mr.

Smontoya.

 

sassy, i am preparing to send a form ot this letter to craptal 1 for an account that tu deleted on my wifes report, but is still on all three of my reports.

 

I disputed TL AAA with CRA 1 (I'd not tell them which specifically -- they're supposed to know)

 

i am wondering why i shouldnt tell them exactly which cra i disputed to get the one deletion.......if you think its best not to tell, should i acually call the cra's CRA1 and CRA2??

[SassyinAz]

Dear OC,

 

You were notified of my dispute of your information on JOINT account # by CRA1. As a result of that dispute, the information was deleted from OUR respective reports with CRA1.

 

As a furnisher of information, at the time of that investigation, you were also required to remove the same information from ALL other CRA's that you reported to.

 

You failed to properly complete your investigation and provide the results to each of the CRA's you report to in violation of FCRA, Section 623, Responsibilities of Furnishers of Information.

 

I am not requesting a new investigation, I am requesting deletion of the information from CRA2 and CRA3 as you were required and failed to do.

 

To cure these violations, please have the TL removed from CRA2 and CRA3 on EACH of our respective reports -- Smontoya and Mr.

Smontoya.

sassy, i am preparing to send a form ot this letter to craptal 1 for an account that tu deleted on my wifes report, but is still on all three of my reports.

 

ok good, nodding

 

I disputed TL AAA with CRA 1 (I'd not tell them which specifically -- they're supposed to know)

 

i am wondering why i shouldnt tell them exactly which cra i disputed to get the one deletion.......if you think its best not to tell, should i acually call the cra's CRA1 and CRA2??

 

oh dear, no, I'm sorry I was being so casual and you read it that way.

 

I didn't know who Smontoya had specifically disputed with nor the OC.

 

So I just inserted AAA, could have been xxx or whatever -- that's the name of the OC and the account number as it appears on whatever CRA is applicable, since the information isn't the same or always the same.

 

The same is true for CRA1 CRA2 and CRA3, I only used those in responding because I didn't know the specifics.

 

You could tell them you discovered the information reporting differently on your reports with consumer reporting agencies or you could tell them specifically TU says this vs EX saying this and EQ saying this.

 

They are supposed to already know what they are reporting, is why I said I wouldn't offer it up. But the truth is, as you well know, YOU really are the only one that knows

 

If it doesn't serve you to tell them specifically which CRA is reporting what just use "consumer reporting agency(ies)" If you think it will help you, tell them only what is reporting and no more.

 

So yes, fill in AAA with the specific tradeline information that applies to you and your wife's reports and the same for the CRA's that I used CRA 1 2 and 3 as examples for.

 

It would surely only further cause their brain cells to stop functioning for the rest of the day after reading your letter if you designated them by number, ya know, it doesn't take much!!!! any excuse to not do their jobs :wink:

 

Sassy

[breana902]

Do you have records of other disputes before sending the letter? I'm thinking if so, you should consider summarizing them all sending to the CRA's with LKH's letter or it spawn for OC's.

 

I'd send again to the OC, if you aren't yet willing to file suit, and perhaps even so depending on if you have records of other disputes with a copy of the FTC's mandated for distribution to all furnishers, summary of responsibilities.

 

Sassy

 

I'm going to fetch you some letters now, so you can see if they fit or close with your other documentation, if any.

 

Thank you Sassy. I do have records of the other disputes. I also see that the OC pulled a soft inquiry on both of our equifax reports prior to sending me the letter. It is getting to late for me to do anything tonight, but I will look everything over more closely tomorrow. I am not quite ready to file suit - what they are reporting on mine is correct. I am just annoyed that it was removed so easily from my husbands reports, yet it remains on mine. I paid it - he gets it removed. I guess that goes along with me being able to raise his score faster than mine! LOL!! Will let you know how it goes and what I did. Can't really think clearly tonight - I need a good nights sleep!

[fullspeed1]

thanks sassy........thought it looked a little odd when i printed my letter out and read it.....

 

guess i just need to go to bed....my brain is done for the day

 

 

lol

[SassyinAz]

Blissful dreams, fullspeed and breana!!!!!!!

 

 

Sassy

[Mega]

OK, Here's a question, fellow creditboarders.

 

In your entire credit experience, using all the knowledge you have collected through this forum over the years, what is the absolute, positive *EASIEST* legitimate credit or charge card to get approved for, that you've ever heard of, and what is the example of the worst credit you've seen that card be issued to?

 

I say 'legitimate' because I don't think we should include the bogus 'catalog' cards in this, that issue to anyone with a pulse. by 'legitimate' i mean real store or visa/mc cards.

[santiam]

Sassy in reference to your post

more furnishers of info

did this strategy work for you? the reason why I am asking is because I have had the same thing done to me. Where one CRA deletes a TL and then the other two verify it and won't delete, or it gets deleted from two CRA's and the third won't delete it. Anyway, I am saying this because so far EQ has deleted most but two neg. TL's. TU has deleted most except for 3 neg TL's and EX deleted 2 recently and their the ones I am having the most trouble with.

 

Thank you,

[Cascades]

I really like that letter, and am planning on using it. However, there are two spelling errors.... "agencies" and "verified"...

 

Cheers!

 

Cas

[smontoya5]

Just an update- looks like Sassy's letter worked! I've sent to 3 OC's and all 3 deleted the TL off of whichever report they still remained on.

 

You Rock Sassy!!!!!