Reinsertion of information..Sassy, Cotterpin, LKH?

[pryan67]

This was started in another thread, http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?s...opic=83496&st=0, and cotterpin and I hijacked ...(more so me than cotterpin)

 

 

 

Does reinsertion apply to ANY information that's changed or deleted by the CRAs due to a dispute, or only if the ENTIRE TL is deleted?

 

 

I say yes, it DOES apply...because of this:

 

FCRA:

 

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

 

 

past payment history IS information...not that it doesn't say "If the TL in question is deleted"...it says if ANY INFORMATION is deleted...and it would be hard to argue that payment history is NOT information...

 

or this scenario:

 

let's say you weren't late in October, 2003 on your Citibank card...but they're reporting that you WERE...

 

you dispute it...and the CRA changes it to "never late"

 

 

3 months later, Citi changes it BACK to "late" for October 2003...

 

 

would you just say "oh well, they can do that without notifying me...since they didn't delete the ENTIRE TL...."

 

 

 

 

comments everyone?

[CramItCCCAs]

Deletions covered under 611 are presumed to be the result of a specific dispute? No? As such information that may or may not fade in and out based on that months tape info wouldn't be held to the same 611 standard. JMHO, really it's all speculation on my part. I don't know that any of this would stand up. I do know that if you sent a reinsertion dispute based on fluctuating data, the CRA would laugh and make you sue them. That's neither here not there but to enforce it would be dubious? Again IMHO

[tulipchic]

I had a TL that I disputed as never late and TU changed it and reported it that way for several months. Then lates reappeared. I tried to get TU to change or delete using this exact theory. They came back with "information verified." I've never gotten it changed back or deleted.

[pryan67]

correct...a flucuation of data wouldn't, but data that was deleted (like late pays ) due to your dispute with the CRAs would be held to that standard...that's what I'm saying...

 

it was said in the other thread that it ONLY applies if the ENTIRE TL was deleted...I disagreed with Sassy and Cotterpin on that...

[tulipchic]

I agree. The FCRA says "any information." To me that means ANY INFORMATION. I don't see how they can ignore this.

[Gryffindor]

What about in cases where the TL has been updated (via dispute) to IIB, then the IIB notation disappears and goes back to Charge Off or Collection?

[pryan67]

What about in cases where the TL has been updated (via dispute) to IIB, then the IIB notation disappears and goes back to Charge Off or Collection?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'd say that is the same thing...

[CramItCCCAs]

correct...a flucuation of data wouldn't, but data that was deleted (like late pays ) due to your dispute with the CRAs would be held to that standard...that's what I'm saying...

 

it was said in the other thread that it ONLY applies if the ENTIRE TL was deleted...I disagreed with Sassy and Cotterpin on that...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't want to speak for fave Sassy or sister cotter, but for me the distinction seems clear, reinsertion under the FCRA speaks, IMHO, to a TL not pieces of a TL. So in that respect I don't see how 611 protects against what could construed as an "update"

[CramItCCCAs]

What about in cases where the TL has been updated (via dispute) to IIB, then the IIB notation disappears and goes back to Charge Off or Collection?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If that happened to me, I'd be going after the OC and getting my deletion directly through them.

[Gryffindor]

Seems like you'd just have to go after the furnisher for providing incorrect info. Wouldn't the CRA have liability in a case where the info was fluctuating a lot?

[pryan67]

correct...a flucuation of data wouldn't, but data that was deleted (like late pays ) due to your dispute with the CRAs would be held to that standard...that's what I'm saying...

 

it was said in the other thread that it ONLY applies if the ENTIRE TL was deleted...I disagreed with Sassy and Cotterpin on that...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't want to speak for fave Sassy or sister cotter, but for me the distinction seems clear, reinsertion under the FCRA speaks, IMHO, to a TL not pieces of a TL. So in that respect I don't see how 611 protects against what could construed as an "update"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

but it's not an update...the incorrect information, discovered during the CRAs "investigation" was deleted, and replaced with correct information...

 

If that's the case, then and "update" would also apply to an item that's totally deleted...because they just "updated" the TL with blanks...

 

611 doesn't speak of TLs...it speaks of "any information".

 

Would you say that 611 applies to addresses and name variations? If so, then why not payment information? If not, then why not?

 

 

just re-read this post...it sounds argumentative...it's not meant that way...just want to know why 611 would ONLY apply to COMPLETE TLs...and not the pieces of it...I don't see that anywhere in the FCRA...

[pryan67]

What about in cases where the TL has been updated (via dispute) to IIB, then the IIB notation disappears and goes back to Charge Off or Collection?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If that happened to me, I'd be going after the OC and getting my deletion directly through them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

would you do the same if the item was completely deleted, only to reappear next month? Doesn't the CRA have a responsibility to ensure that information that is deleted stays deleted?

 

 

I guess the main question is...what is an "item of information" per the FCRA...and where is the line drawn?

 

And why there?

[CramItCCCAs]

correct...a flucuation of data wouldn't, but data that was deleted (like late pays ) due to your dispute with the CRAs would be held to that standard...that's what I'm saying...

 

it was said in the other thread that it ONLY applies if the ENTIRE TL was deleted...I disagreed with Sassy and Cotterpin on that...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't want to speak for fave Sassy or sister cotter, but for me the distinction seems clear, reinsertion under the FCRA speaks, IMHO, to a TL not pieces of a TL. So in that respect I don't see how 611 protects against what could construed as an "update"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

but it's not an update...the incorrect information, discovered during the CRAs "investigation" was deleted, and replaced with correct information...

 

If that's the case, then and "update" would also apply to an item that's totally deleted...because they just "updated" the TL with blanks...

 

611 doesn't speak of TLs...it speaks of "any information".

 

Would you say that 611 applies to addresses and name variations? If so, then why not payment information? If not, then why not?

 

 

just re-read this post...it sounds argumentative...it's not meant that way...just want to know why 611 would ONLY apply to COMPLETE TLs...and not the pieces of it...I don't see that anywhere in the FCRA...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not taking it as argumentative at all, it's healthy discussion, however we're both speculating because we haven’t done the leg work on it yet. While the FCRA is not specific about it being a TL, the FCRA leaves lots of details out as we both know. So like so many other parts of the FCRA it depends on opinion + interpretation + case law and what's already transpired.

 

On the surface, as someone who likes to call them as I see them, and as someone who has been a part of many of these boards for many years, the advise I was given in the beginning was to get negative trade lines deleted, not corrected. Because they could always change back. But once they were deleted, that was it. And while on the surface that may seem simplistic or related to limited FCRA knowledge, I think it's related to the truth. Again JMHO

[pryan67]

I'm not taking it as argumentative at all, it's healthy discussion, however we're both speculating because we haven’t done the leg work on it yet. While the FCRA is not specific about it being a TL, the FCRA leaves lots of details out as we both know. So like so many other parts of the FCRA it depends on opinion + interpretation + case law and what's already transpired.

 

On the surface, as someone who likes to call them as I see them, and as someone who has been a part of many of these boards for many years, the advise I was given in the beginning was to get negative trade lines deleted, not corrected. Because they could always change back. But once they were deleted, that was it. And while on the surface that may seem simplistic or related to limited FCRA knowledge, I think it's related to the truth. Again JMHO

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'm glad you didn't take it as argumentative...I sometimes come across that way, although I try not to.

 

True...we ARE speculating...I haven't seen any caselaw on this yet...I'm going to do some checking into it though..

 

I TOTALLY agree that items should be deleted, rather than "corrected"...it's just easier that way...but sometimes, it happens where items are made positive due to a dispute, rather than deleted...happened to me twice...once with an old mortgage...it hasn't changed back...but if it does, I'll handle it like I did with EQ when they reinserted negative information for a Citi account...took them a week to delete it after my letter...

 

 

 

Since the FCRA is (supposedly) a "plain language" statute, I'd think that a least sophisticated consumer would believe that "item of information" would pertain to each piece of the TL, rather than only the entire TL...

 

 

I think this is something that will need to be decided in court...if the CRAs ever let it get that far...to be honest, I don't think that they'd ever let it see the inside of a courtroom for fear that they'd lose BIG time...

[direred]

        ( 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.

[pryan67]

bump for more comments

[joshbgosh]

I look at it the same way you do pryan...

 

But, I also see as it can be an uphill battle (since the CRA's are "interpreting" it otherwise). You may be right about them not wanting to go to the courtroom for this though

 

key word "any" information (they would most likely lose is court).

 

I think it is the CRA's responsibility to ensure that DELETED info doesn't reappear, even if the furnisher continues to report it. If the furnisher failed to verify during the investigation and it was deleted, then the CRA's need to have a system in place to keep the deleted info from reappearing...and if it does reapper they need to notify the consumer...it's written in plain English, but they still fail to follow it.

[cotterpin]

The debate is whether or not reinsertion applies solely to a full tradeline or if it holds to information within the tradeline.

 

 

IMO, it applies to the tradeline as a whole and it would fall back onto the furnisher.

 

When you submit a dispute to the CRA's, they are supposed to contact the furnisher, and information is either updated by the furnisher, or if the furnisher doesn't respond the the dispute they're supposed to delete the entire tradeline, correct?

 

So, if the furnisher provides the update based on the dispute, then it was never "deleted" to begin with, simply updated, and therefore isn't subjected to the reinsertion requirements.

 

 

Or maybe I'm simplifying it too much.

[pryan67]

The debate is whether or not reinsertion applies solely to a full tradeline or if it holds to information within the tradeline. 

 

 

IMO, it applies to the tradeline as a whole and it would fall back onto the furnisher.

 

When you submit a dispute to the CRA's, they are supposed to contact the furnisher, and information is either updated by the furnisher, or if the furnisher doesn't respond the the dispute they're supposed to delete the entire tradeline,  correct? 

 

nope...I don't believe so....if you dispute as "never late", and the furnisher (assuming they're even contacted) doesn't respond, then it should be updated to "never late", since that IS the result of the investigation...the FCRA states "deleted or updated to reflect the results of the investigation"...if you say you were never late (part one of the investigation), and there's no evidence to the contrary (the furnisher not responding), then the "results" of the investigation would be that you were never late.

 

 

 

So, if the furnisher provides the update based on the dispute, then it was never "deleted" to begin with, simply updated, and therefore isn't subjected to the reinsertion requirements.

 

 

Or maybe I'm simplifying it too much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'd still argue that them deleting the late payment information (and replacing it with never lates) would fall under it, since something WAS deleted...namely the late pays...

 

 

I see your point...but since the FCRA doesn't say "TL", but rather "any information", it seems to me that it would apply to the data within the TL...

[italqt]

I am going thought the same thing with Experian, have posted this on the board but am not get much info on it.

 

If they put it back into your report, doesn't the date last reported change? If the creditor changed any ifo on the TL?

[CramItCCCAs]

Here's why I feel your argument is specious, clearly it says any information, however if, like you suggested, a late payment is not verified in time, but is accurate, it can come back and has as we all know. If you send the CRA a 5 reinsertion notice requesting deletion, you'll be ignored. You say a CRA will not want to go to court for this but you don't know it to be fact, I say they will fight it if properly motivated and will let a federal judge decide.

 

The very first sub-section of 611 says:

 

(A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer.

 

IMHO, this seems to me to be saying if it's right, we'll update it (some TL changes) if it's wrong, we'll delete it. It's all in the interpretation of "any information" and we can debate that all day, nothing matters until we find case law that suggests how judges interpret "any information"

[Algo]

Are you talking about the OC/CA/etc. not being able to reinsert? Or are you talking about if something gets reinserted w/o notification from the CRA?

 

In that case I have to agree with Pryan. We're not talking about CAN they change it back to LATE, we are saying that IF it gets changed back then they would need to notify us. It's really simple and easy to send out a letter saying that a change was made. If the CRA cannot figure out that they had previously changed that to NEVER LATE because of a dispute, well that's their fault. They should update their procedures, etc. I read "ANY INFORMATION" to mean just that, ANY information contained in the file.

 

Let us think of this example and then see what we think.

 

Bob is a consumer and he gets his credit report. Bob see's that his CC company has said he was 30 days late once, but Bob knows that to be untrue so he disputes. It gets changed to never late for whatever reasons. In a few months Bob wants to buy a car. Well Bob doesn't know that a month or 2 before his CC company changed it back to 30 days late and knocked his score just a few points below what he needed for the best interest rates. Now Bob is paying extra money each month because Bob needed a car and couldn't afford to wait any longer to fix his report. Had Bob known that the change happened, he could have fixed it and gotten a better rate.

 

I believe this is what Pryan was talking about. Should the CRA have notified Bob that the change, that AFFECTS his score and lending decisions, happened so that he could have fixed it, or should the CRA have said that the whole Tradeline hadn't been changed, so they didn't need to notify Bob?

[pryan67]

Here's why I feel your argument is specious, clearly it says any information, however if, like you suggested, a late payment is not verified in time, but is accurate, it can come back and has as we all know. If you send the CRA a 5 reinsertion notice requesting deletion, you'll be ignored. You say a CRA will not want to go to court for this but you don't know it to be fact, I say they will fight it if properly motivated and will let a federal judge decide.

 

Does that mean that if a late payment (or not mine for that matter) isn't verified in time, but the TL IS accurate, that it can come back at any time?

 

I HAVE sent a letter out concerning this...and the item was gone within a week...of course, that's only ONE person that it's worked for...I don't know if others have tried it yet...

 

you're right that I don't know it for a fact that the CRAs wouldn't want to go to court over it....but I'd like to see how a judge would rule on this...I DO see your point...but I disagree...and neither of us are judges (wouldn't THAT be fun...be a judge to hear these cases? *grin*)

 

The very first sub-section of 611 says:

 

(A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer.

 

IMHO, this seems to me to be saying if it's right, we'll update it (some TL changes) if it's wrong, we'll delete it. It's all in the interpretation of "any information" and we can debate that all day, nothing matters until we find case law that suggests how judges interpret "any information"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

if we use your interpretation of "any information" (in the reinsertion section) that it's ONLY for fully deleted TLs, then we can't (per the above section) dispute PARTS of a TL...I'd say that "item of information" MUST be consistent throughout...it can't mean an entire TL (for reinsertion), but any PART of a TL (for reinvestigations)

[cotterpin]

OK, so let's go on that then pryan, let's take a look at 2 situations

 

I have a balance of 15000.00 on a current loan with 5 30-day lates.

 

Situation 1:

 

I dispute my current loan, and state "balance paid in full" and we know that the furnisher is not going to verify that this loan is PIF, so we'll say furnisher doesn't respond.

 

-TU deletes the tradeline.

-EX states verified, remains

-EQ changes account to closed by consumer, zero balance

 

Now, next month, my furnisher provides updated information, and on EQ reverts back to an open account, balance of $15000.00, you still state that it's reinsertion, correct?

 

 

Situation 2:

 

I dispute the account as "never late", and the accounts on ALL 3 are updated from the 5 lates to 1 30 day late each, by the furnisher.

 

The next month, my loan now re reports, and goes from 1 30 day late to 3 30 day lates on all 3 reports. You state this is reinsertion as well, because the changes were the result of a dispute, even though the change was made by the data furnisher?

 

 

I disagree, because I don't think that the intent of the reinsertion clause is for items within a tradeline, but for the tradeline itself.

 

Of course, the only way to really test this out is to try it out, get some case law on it or something, (though I'm not gonna be the guinea pig on this one )

[Algo]

I disagree, because I don't think that the intent of the reinsertion clause is for items within a tradeline, but for the tradeline itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We are all in agreement that the term "ANY INFORMATION" throughout the FCRA as it pertains to what you can dispute would meany ANY information, even if it was something spelled wrong, or some little nitpicky item within a tradeline right? However, we seem to disagree on what the same term, "ANY INFORMATION", means when it comes to reinsertion. If you believe that reinsertion should not pertain to parts of a tradeline, then why should you be allowed to dispute parts of a tradeline?

 

We cannot be changing the terminology througout the document, but rather it must remain consistent. I will have to side with Pryan on this one. I don't think the writers of the FCRA had different intentions of the term "ANY INFORMATION" in different sections fo the FCRA.