CRA's as Furnishers of Information

[TheCapn]

Can a CRA be a furnisher of information? Lets say for the sake of argument that Equifax reports a public record on a consumer's credit report. The consumer disputes and it is subsequently verified. A PR is sent and the consumer finds out that Equifax obtained it's verification information from Dolan Information Services which is also a CRA.

 

My question is this...I believe that Equifax would be in essence pulling a consumer credit report from Dolan Informaton Services. What would be the "permissible purpose"??? There is no extension of credit, employment, our insurance.

 

I need to do some more reading in the FCRA...I'm sure there is an argument in there somewhere.

[Susan]

It's the Dolan thing, right? I was just thinking the same thing after your previous post. It would kind of be like Macy's reporting your JC Penney info. (I think you know what I mean!) If the courts are the ones with the information (but they don't furnish information) wouldn't the only legal way for a CRA to place the info. on your report be for them to actually retrieve the info from the courts themselves? Sorry just thinking out loud!

[TheCapn]

That is exactly what I am thinking...This has me thinking about the whole permissible purpose thing...If Equifax is a CRA and Dolan is a CRA...How can Dolan be a furnisher of information and release my records when there is no extension of credit, insurance or employment???

[Susan]

Yeah I see your angle. But how can it be listed on your report as xyz court when xyz court is not the furnisher? Why isn't it listed or referenced somehow to Dolan on your report? Or Pacer? Why isn't the source of the info correctly stated on your report??

[TheCapn]

Susan...those are all good questions...I just re-read the entire FCRA and do not see how Dolan can be a CRA and a furnisher of information. If they provided information about me to lets say Equifax what was the "permissible purpose" given? I am not seeing it.

[Susan]

I really can't make it relate either. I think we need Sassy, Dixie or one of the seasoned pros to chime in a tell us what we're missing. I can not see how a CRA could supply info to another CRA when they don't share info. Where does the permission come from to supply this info? Is is because it is a public record?

[Gib]

I like the fact you are trying to come up with a new twist, but I think "Public record" is pretty self explanatory.

 

Gib

[TheCapn]

I think the fact that it is a public record is irrevelent. If Dolan is a CRA as outlined in the FCRA then they are bound by the permissible purpose section. So if Equifax got information from Dolan then a permissible purpose would have to apply since Dolan is a CRA. So as a consumer I have not requested credit, employment, or insurance and Equifax is not a government agency. I don't see it how this is proper.

[TheCapn]

I like the fact you are trying to come up with a new twist, but I think "Public record" is pretty self explanatory.

 

Gib

 

I agree that it is a public record...If Equifax went to the court and obtained the information then that would be appropriate.

 

If they obtained the information from another CRA as oulined by the FCRA as well as Dolan's website say they are a CRA...Would you not agree that there has to be a permissible purpose for them to supply information to Equifax?

[Susan]

Okay Gib - I get your point! It's really late and I thought this was a creative writing class!!

 

I really do think it's questionable though.

 

If you send a pr. request to a CRA on a public record the CRA gives you:

 

We verified with xyz court.

 

When infact that is not how it is verified. Aren't the tradelines on your credit report placed there by furnishers? If that is the case then did xyz furnish this info to the CRA directly? No, we know they didn't. So why should you have to bang their heads against a wall to get the correct info out of them. If in Capn's first pr. request the CRA sent the correct info. then most people would say alright, I got what I asked for-end of story. But Capn takes it one step further and asks where the pp is for the retrival of this info because it came from another CRA. If the CRA told Capn the they sent the janitor over to xyz courthouse and physically pulled the paperwork that's how it was verified then okay, because that is a public record coming from a public source. Would Dolan be considered a public source?

 

Thanks - Susan

[Susan]

One more thing-then I really have to go to bed or I will not be worth @@@@ in the morning!

 

If a company has to be a subscriber of a CRA in order to place information on the CRA's files, would it be fair to assume that Dolan is a subsciber to the CRA? Or do you think that the CRA is a subsciber to Dolan? :shock:

[SassyinAz]

oh wow, ya'll are flying!!!!!!!!!!

 

Nodding, hang on, my brain is already @@@@@ with Susan's should she not be snoring.

 

Someone just did this perfectly for exposing this lie for just what it is -- ya'll are there indeed.

 

Finding it (work with me @@@@@@@ brain) lol

 

Sassy

[SassyinAz]

Capn, it was YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...er=asc&start=15

 

They can't be both, I say.

 

Susan is exactly right, I say, nodding. That's the lie that it is the courts furnishing, it is not, nor will they.

 

Dear Court,

 

I have BK information reporting on my consumer report. The CRA says you are the furnisher of information.

 

Pursuant to the FCRA, I can initiate a dispute with the furnisher of information directly and the CRA is recommending that I contact you directly.

 

Please provide me with documentation outlining the required dispute process with a court, I am not understanding how this is possible. I understand that courts don't furnish the information to CRA's directly, may I have documentation from you please confirming the same.

 

Thank you.

 

You only have to get something that says that or even just tell the CRA. I contacted the court, they said they don't report information to CRA's therefore this couldn't have been verified.

 

Sassy

[SassyinAz]

Actually, I think it would be fun to send a dispute letter to the court, playing dumb -- saying the CRA has advised I should dispute this information directly with you as the furnisher of information at this address.

 

But, it's a court and I'm not so sure they'd find it as humorous as I would. However, the response surely would be a slam dunk deletion!!!!!!!

 

Sassy

[ArmySarge6]

Just wondering how y'all think so clearly so late at night...LOL...however, this is a very valid point and I like the thought of playing with the court too!

[dixiedrifter]

Man I was thinking the same thing even before this thread really got rolling.

 

The FCRA is supposedly a "plain language statute".

 

A furnisher of information would be the individual that provided the public record to the CRA's not the court house itself.

 

When verifying a dispute, the CRA is required to contact the furnisher of information to verify that the information is correct.

 

If a CRA contacts the courthouse directly to verify the information, they did not follow "procedure in case of disputed accuracy".

 

Furthermore, when a procedural request is sent to the CRA's, they should have to identify the individual that furnished the information to the CRA's not the courthouse.

 

The correct procedure for verifying public records would be the individual that furnished the information to the CRA's would have to verify with the CRA's, not the courthouse.

 

It would also mean that the furnishers, not the court, would be held accountable for providing false info to the CRA's.

 

I think there are a valids legal argument to the above statements, but it would probably be fought out all the way to the supreme court.

[TheCapn]

^^^bump^^^

[TheCapn]

Capn, it was YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtop...er=asc&start=15

 

They can't be both, I say.

 

Susan is exactly right, I say, nodding. That's the lie that it is the courts furnishing, it is not, nor will they.

 

Dear Court,

 

I have BK information reporting on my consumer report. The CRA says you are the furnisher of information.

 

Pursuant to the FCRA, I can initiate a dispute with the furnisher of information directly and the CRA is recommending that I contact you directly.

 

Please provide me with documentation outlining the required dispute process with a court, I am not understanding how this is possible. I understand that courts don't furnish the information to CRA's directly, may I have documentation from you please confirming the same.

 

Thank you.

 

You only have to get something that says that or even just tell the CRA. I contacted the court, they said they don't report information to CRA's therefore this couldn't have been verified.

 

Sassy

 

Thanks Sassy...I pretty sure I have this CRA between an rock and a hard place...yesterday they sent me another attempt at the proper PR and told me they contacted Dolan...So my question to the judge will be "I'm not sure judge...I have 3 documents that state 3 different things...Does this seem as though reasonable procedures were followed?

[JessicaRabbit88]

Ohhhh I like this, and am currently fighting the CRA on the exact same issue. I even told the CSR, "It is impossible for you to verify that public record, as I have never had a judgement with that case number", she said, "well we did with the courthouse". I sent them an ITS to prove it to me, well and you can see from my other thread what they did to me in retaliation.

 

Jessica

[Gib]

Just want to bump this thread. It isn't often there is meaningful discussion on possible new ways to deal with CRAs.

 

I think the kicker here is that like TheCapn said, Dolan actually refers to themselves as a CRA. This post is going to make me re-read the entire FCRA.....AGAIN

 

Gib

[SassyinAz]

The pudding for me is in this document, a transcript of a workshop that was held to address identity theft and the associated problems from both sides of the fence:

 

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/idtheft/t...ipts/001023.htm

 

Also, while looking for confirmation of what WhyChat was asserting, I couldn't find any btw, I did however find documentation from the association of BK trustees stating how huge of a problem and common scam it is to file BK using the identification of another, to stop foreclosure and the like, by means of the filing alone, but without the follow-through.

 

Meaning, if I were facing foreclosure, as a scam and wanting to get out of that foreclosure (because the filing alone kicks in the automatic stay, I would file BK as Sassy but use someone else's identifying information or do some fancy paper manuvering that put my asset facing foreclosure to another with at least a partial interest that would also be benefitting from the automatic stay.

 

As far as credit reporting goes, I could then say, no I'm SassyinAZ NOT Sassy -- delete that bogus TL, the balance of the information wouldn't match up. Now I've escaped all responsibilities and kept my asset too.

 

Court cases, Richardson and the like, support that, once notified of a dispute, the CRA's investigative responsibilities go beyond the original source itself.

 

Meaning for me, in this case anyway, even sending someone to the court to verify the information isn't enough -- they have to go beyond that and verify that I SassyinAZ was in fact the same Sassy that filed.

 

Additionally, if the court were the furnisher of the information, we truly have the right to dispute with the court as the furnisher otherwise our right to dispute with the furnisher directly really isn't a right at all.

 

Dolan may well be the furnisher, it should definately say so, just hanging out in courts gathering information and then reporting it still doesn't make a thing factual or remove their responsibility for going beyond that.

 

That's my biggest gripe with the CRA's -- they'd have us believe the courts themselves provided the information -- well ok, the CRA's aren't part of the government, they only want us to believe they have some kind of authority. If the court WERE the furnisher of information and providing the information for reporting -- that would make reporting a requirement, it surely isn't.

 

It's just a lie being perpetuated by the CRA's all the way around.

 

Sassy

[knewkid]

Earlier in this thread the question was about Dolan's PP for furnishing information...I thought PP applied only to pulling inquiries?

 

Am I missing something here?

 

....KK

[Susan]

Access to Dolan would only be granted if you were to want to see your own report or if someone were a subscriber(in order to insert info.) right? There is no public access to Dolan is there?

 

Isn't this kind of like disputing an item on EQ and having them verify it with Trans Union? That doesn't happen.

[TheCapn]

Access to Dolan would only be granted if you were to want to see your own report or if someone were a subscriber(in order to insert info.) right?  There is no public access to Dolan is there?

 

Isn't this kind of like disputing an item on EQ and having them verify it with Trans Union?  That doesn't happen.

 

I don't think Dolan can be a furnisher of information and a CRA...Here is my argument....If Equifax states that they got their public record information from Dolan...And Dolan is a CRA by their own admission on their website...What was the "permissible purpose" for Equiifax to get that information from Dolan? All of these things may be answered in September when I go to court...I sued their @sses.

[SassyinAz]

Hey Capn,

 

If Dolan is indeed a CRA, let's all opt out

 

That'll take care of that!

 

Sassy