I have a dumb question, so don't laugh! :)
I just had a charge off on my credit report deleted by the CRA. What are the chances of it being re-added? For example if the OC decides to report next month will it automatically be re-added to my CR? Is that considered re-insertion and if it is, is that illegal?
Originally posted by 242425
I have a dumb question, so don't laugh! :)
I just had a charge off on my credit report deleted by the CRA. What are the chances of it being re-added? For example if the OC decides to report next month will it automatically be re-added to my CR? Is that considered re-insertion and if it is, is that illegal?
5 DAY NOTICE REQUIRED
So they have to send me notice that they are re-inserting the tradeline 5 days before they do it? Who has to send the notice? CRA or OC? To have it removed again do I have to go through the whole dispute process again? Thank you.
Originally posted by 242425
So they have to send me notice that they are re-inserting the tradeline 5 days before they do it? Who has to send the notice? CRA or OC? To have it removed again do I have to go through the whole dispute process again? Thank you. CRA
Originally posted by 242425
To have it removed again do I have to go through the whole dispute process again? Thank you.
Any thoughts on this? THanks.
Originally posted by 242425
So they have to send me notice that they are re-inserting the tradeline 5 days before they do it? Who has to send the notice? CRA or OC? To have it removed again do I have to go through the whole dispute process again? Thank you. It's one thing if the OC reports the TL again - it will be like any other TL reported by the OCs. No action from CRA is required.
It's another thing if CRA reinserts the TL. They can do it only if "the person who furnishes the information certifies that the information is complete and accurate" and in this case the CRA must "notify the consumer of the reinsertion in writing not later than 5 business days after the reinsertion".
Ref: FCRA 611(a)(5)(B) (http://demospace.net/vgcredit/popup.asp?curid=fcra\FCRA_611(a)(5)(B))
Originally posted by vghost
It's one thing if the OC reports the TL again - it will be like any other TL reported by the OCs. No action from CRA is required.
It's another thing if CRA reinserts the TL. They can do it only if "the person who furnishes the information certifies that the information is complete and accurate" and in this case the CRA must "notify the consumer of the reinsertion in writing not later than 5 business days after the reinsertion".
Ref: FCRA 611(a)(5)(B) (http://demospace.net/vgcredit/popup.asp?curid=fcra\FCRA_611(a)(5)(B))
I think that is actually incorrect. If the original poster disputed and the CRA deleted after attempting to investigate it, they do have to notify him if they put it back on his report. This why they suppress info. If the OC or CA changes account numbers or amounts then I think it would be hard to hold the CRA accountable.
Originally posted by pnwman
I think that is actually incorrect. If the original poster disputed and the CRA deleted after attempting to investigate it, they do have to notify him if they put it back on his report. This why they suppress info. If the OC or CA changes account numbers or amounts then I think it would be hard to hold the CRA accountable. That's the tricky part ... if the CRA does it on their own, yes, they have to notify, but if the OC reports it in their regular monthly report - CRA is not obligated to do anything, even if it's about the same account. Because the OC has reported it again and the CRA didn't "reinsert" it, they just reported this month what the OC have sent them this month.
Originally posted by vghost
That's the tricky part ... if the CRA does it on their own, yes, they have to notify, but if the OC reports it in their regular monthly report - CRA is not obligated to do anything, even if it's about the same account. Because the OC has reported it again and the CRA didn't "reinsert" it, they just reported this month what the OC have sent them this month.
Sorry, pnwman is absolutely right. There is nothing tricky about it. The OC HAS to certify to the accuracy of the TL, and regular monthly reporting does not meet that criteria.
B) 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.
Originally posted by jlynn
Sorry, pnwman is absolutely right. There is nothing tricky about it. The OC HAS to certify to the accuracy of the TL, and regular monthly reporting does not meet that criteria.
B) 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. With all due respect, jlynn, there is a tricky part - the difference between reporting and reinserting.
- When the OC "regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information" to the CRA, then the CRA will report the information.
- When the CRA decides by itself to report previously deleted information, then the CRA will reinsert the information.
In addition, furnishing the information "regularly and in the ordinary course of business" will execute the OC's obligation under 611(a)(5)(B) (http://demospace.net/vgcredit/popup.asp?curid=fcra\FCRA_611(a)(5)(B)) to certify "that the information is complete and accurate".
In addition, let say you had a CO. Let say you disputed it with the CRA, you get lucky and the CRA deleted it. Let say the OC finds out about it. Section 623(a)(1)(A) (http://demospace.net/vgcredit/popup.asp?curid=fcra\FCRA_623(a)(1)(A)) prohibits the OC from furnishing inaccurate information. Knowing that the CO is, in fact, the accurate information, the OC cannot report the account without the CO note.
In addition, in Philbin vs TransUnion (http://demospace.net/vgcredit/popup.asp?curid=fcra\FCRA_PHILBIN) is clearly stated that "allowing inaccurate information back onto a credit report after deleting it because it is inaccurate is negligent". They were not talking about any, but about an inaccurate information.
IMHO, the keyword is "accurate". You would be absolutely right if there wasn't, in fact, a CO on his account, but that's not the case here. For as long as the OC is the owner of the account and there is a CO on the account, the OC has the right to furnish the information to the CRA and the CRA has the right to report it.
P.S. I hope I won't have to buy *you* flowers ... :-)
Originally posted by vghost
That's the tricky part ... if the CRA does it on their own, yes, they have to notify, but if the OC reports it in their regular monthly report - CRA is not obligated to do anything, even if it's about the same account. Because the OC has reported it again and the CRA didn't "reinsert" it, they just reported this month what the OC have sent them this month.
That is tricky. If the OC decides to furnish the TL again, doesn't the CRA have a duty to initially investigate? And if the CRA did actually investigate, wouldn't that investigation reveal the same TL that was previously deleted?
I would think that the CRA would try the "our computer didn't catch it" cop-out. Nevertheless, they do have a duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy. I think it would be hard for the CRA to prove that after at least two investigations of the same TL that they couldn't assure MPA.
So basically the tradeline could end up back on my credit report and there would be almost nothing I could do about it other than do the whole dispute process over again. I don't see how they can put it back on if it was found to be inaccurate and deleted. I am confused.
Originally posted by 242425
So basically the tradeline could end up back on my credit report and there would be almost nothing I could do about it other than do the whole dispute process over again. I don't see how they can put it back on if it was found to be inaccurate and deleted. I am confused. Hang on, this is just my opinion. I'm sure jlynn will comment it, I hope some other of the Gurus will comment it too.
Again, it's my interpretation of the law in case you do have a charge-off. If you don't, then the CRA has no reason to reinsert it.
P.S. I've called the cavalry, hope they will come soon ... :-)
The "re-insertion" procedure is listed in 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. 1681i]
In the first section ((A)), we see the following language:
"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 "
This means that before ANY of the requirements listed in 611 "kick in" the consumer must FIRST dispute the TL's accuracy.
Once an item is "deleted" BECAUSE THE CONSUMER DISPUTED IT'S ACCURACY, it now meets the definition of "deleted" information. It's the deletion of the TL because of the consumers dispute that causes 611 to kick in, which includes the "certification" requirement.
(B) 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),
(A), as noted above is pursuant to a dispute by the consumer.
It's the CRA's job to, in these instances, to "SUPPRESS" the TL to prevent it from reappearing.
Here's what it says on the EQ website:
Check your credit file periodically to see that information that has been removed has not been re-inserted. (Deleted information may not be re-inserted into your file unless the agency takes steps to have the source of the information certify that it is complete and accurate.)
ONLY if the DF "certifies" the accuracy of the info., may the CRA re-report.
So do I get flowers???
:)
.
Originally posted by Butch
ONLY if the DF "certifies" the accuracy of the info., may the CRA re-report.
So do I get flowers???
:) Not after one more question ... :-)
If the DF reports again the account as charge-off in their ordinary course of business, would you consider this a "certification" of the accuracy?
Originally posted by vghost
Not after one more question ... :-)
If the DF reports again the account as charge-off in their ordinary course of business, would you consider this a "certification" of the accuracy?
Good question Vlad.
Doc and I used to argue about that. As a result I looked up the word "certify", "certified", and "certification", in the FCRA and found about 40 references or so, I forget how many. lol
A "certification" requires a signature. IMHO a cert. is a document attesting to the TL's accuracy and signed by a person of position.
:)
.
They never get those BTW. We used to talk about DEMANDING a copy of this mysterious cert whenever a TL got re-inserted.
I don't believe we've seen one yet.
In a case where someone did demand it and ended up in court, the CRA said to the Judge, "we have it your honor but couldn't locate the document".
lol
.
Originally posted by Butch
Good question Vlad.I know ... my whole "defense" in this "case" comes to the answer to this question ... :-)
Originally posted by Butch
In a case where someone did demand it and ended up in court, the CRA said to the Judge, "we have it your honor but couldn't locate the document".Hmm ... and because FCRA does not obligate them to provide us with the certification, they can just ignore us and show it to the court only ... is that what you're saying?
Originally posted by Butch
A "certification" requires a signature.Well, that's a whole new discussion ... :-)
BTW, I miss Sassy ...
Originally posted by Butch
In a case where someone did demand it and ended up in court, the CRA said to the Judge, "we have it your honor but couldn't locate the document". BTW, if I have proof that I have requested that certification from the CRA several times and they have failed to provide it, and, they show it in the court room, couldn't some estoppel (by silence, or equitable) apply?
Just thinking aloud ...
Sorry guys. The new job only allows me a short period of time here :( You two are making it way to complicated. Look at it this way.
If, under your theory, re-reporting in the course of business is considered certification, or is not considered reinsertion, why would any Furnisher respond to a dispute?
Lets see jlynn is disputing xyz. We won't bother to investigate. Let the CRA delete and next time we re-report, it will be right back on there, and we have no work. See?
Originally posted by jlynn
Sorry guys. The new job only allows me a short period of time here :( You two are making it way to complicated. Look at it this way.
If, under your theory, re-reporting in the course of business is considered certification, or is not considered reinsertion, why would any Furnisher respond to a dispute?
Lets see jlynn is disputing xyz. We won't bother to investigate. Let the CRA delete and next time we re-report, it will be right back on there, and we have no work. See?
I am a little confused by this. Are you saying they CAN just report it again and get it back on my CR or that doing it the way you described above wouldn't be "certification"?
Originally posted by 242425
I am a little confused by this. Are you saying they CAN just report it again and get it back on my CR or that doing it the way you described above wouldn't be "certification"?
I'm saying that just reporting it again in the course of doing business is not certification. If it were, then no furnishers would research disputes...they would only need to report each month as they usually do, and the information would be placed back on our reports.
Originally posted by jlynn
I'm saying that just reporting it again in the course of doing business is not certification. If it were, then no furnishers would research disputes...they would only need to report each month as they usually do, and the information would be placed back on our reports. Hey jlynn!
You might be right from a practical point of view. I guess me and Butch were talking about it if it goes to court.
But even practical - if there is a derog on the account, CRA deletes it (by accident, by mistake, CHOD), then CRA will be reporting inaccurate information, because the derog really exists. And the OC has full rights to request this derog to appear on the CR ... both practical and by the law. As I said before - if there wasn't a derog - you're absolutely right.
The point I'm trying to make is, if you do have a charge-off, you can't prevent its appearance on your CR. Unless you are very lucky ... :-)
Originally posted by vghost
Hey jlynn!
You might be right from a practical point of view. I guess me and Butch were talking about it if it goes to court.
But even practical - if there is a derog on the account, CRA deletes it (by accident, by mistake, CHOD), then CRA will be reporting inaccurate information, because the derog really exists. And the OC has full rights to request this derog to appear on the CR ... both practical and by the law. As I said before - if there wasn't a derog - you're absolutely right.
The point I'm trying to make is, if you do have a charge-off, you can't prevent its appearance on your CR. Unless you are very lucky ... :-)
I don't think your still getting my point...
mistake/accident - not 611, so no recert
CHOD - 611 dispute recert necessary
You CAN prevent a CO reappearance if the Furnisher does not certify that the individual TL is 100% accurate and verifiable. Rereporting with the masses is not acceptable. The OC does have full rights to request its presence--but it has to be verifiable.
Secondly - the CRA has to notify you in writing within 5 days of its reappearance - or they have violated the law.
Been there done this, and DH's definitely lates on his GMAC account are not there because GMAC did rereport it with the masses, did not certify it, and CSC did not notify us of the reinsertion. It is gone for good.
5 baddies from TU are gone for good thanks to CHOD. They were deleted, then reinserted without proper individualized certification, and now have been deleted and suppressed so they CAN'T show up again.
Originally posted by jlynn
I don't think your still getting my point...
mistake/accident - not 611, so no recert
CHOD - 611 dispute recert necessary
You CAN prevent a CO reappearance if the Furnisher does not certify that the individual TL is 100% accurate and verifiable. Rereporting with the masses is not acceptable. The OC does have full rights to request its presence--but it has to be verifiable.
Secondly - the CRA has to notify you in writing within 5 days of its reappearance - or they have violated the law.
Been there done this, and DH's definitely lates on his GMAC account are not there because GMAC did rereport it with the masses, did not certify it, and CSC did not notify us of the reinsertion. It is gone for good.
5 baddies from TU are gone for good thanks to CHOD. They were deleted, then reinserted without proper individualized certification, and now have been deleted and suppressed so they CAN'T show up again.
Dumb question for you. What is CHOD???
Cneter's Holiday Onslaught of Disputes. Short version - around the holidays, the CRA's 30 days are limited by closings, and people taking xtra time off. So we send bunches of disputes hoping they won't get done in 30 days.
Originally posted by jlynn
I don't think your still getting my point...Oh, I get the point ... and I'm sure glad the point looks like this ... :-)
Originally posted by jlynn
... then reinserted without proper individualized certification ...As I said before, I wasn't sure what's considered a "verification". The dictionary gives several meanings, one of them is just "confirmation". If you say that "verification" is interpreted as a separate paper with the DF's statement the account is yours and their signature - that's good for all of us and you get the flowers ... :-)
May be you can clear up few more things ...
CRA is not obligated to give us a copy of that certification. We say they haven't verified it. They just say they have. We take them to the court. How can we be sure that they won't just show it to the court and rest their case? Butch said he has seen things like this happen.
In addition, if I have proof that I have requested that certification from the CRA several times and they have failed to provide it, and, they show it in the court room, couldn't some estoppel (by silence, or equitable) apply?
I have to fly with jlynn on this one; nothing tricky either!!!!!!!
Here are the steps as well as the part that is missing from this thread.
611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. 1681i]
(a) Reinvestigations of disputed information.
(1) Reinvestigation required.
(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.
Assuming no frivilous or irrelevant determination that triggers a termination of the required reinvestigation and a different notice from the CRA's to the consumer within 5-days.
2) Prompt notice of dispute to furnisher of information.
(A) In general. Before the expiration of the 5-business-day period beginning on the date on which a consumer reporting agency receives notice of a dispute from any consumer in accordance with paragraph (1), the agency shall provide notification of the dispute to any person who provided any item of information in dispute, at the address and in the manner established with the person. The notice shall include all relevant information regarding the dispute that the agency has received from the consumer.
NOT providing the notice of dispute and information, isn't an option.
(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
Assuming deletion for the purposes of this thread
6) Notice of results of reinvestigation.
(A) In general. A consumer reporting agency shall provide written notice to a consumer of the results of a reinvestigation under this subsection not later than 5 business days after the completion of the reinvestigation, by mail or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by other means available to the agency.
Here is the part you are missing, it always comes back to reasonable procedures, the CRA's have a bigger role once something is disputed.
And, this is what the snippet from the Philibin case (previosly quoted) refers to and why the court determined it is always negligent.
C) Procedures to prevent reappearance. A consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to prevent the reappearance in a consumer's file, and in consumer reports on the consumer, of information that is deleted pursuant to this paragraph (other than information that is reinserted in accordance with subparagraph (B)(i)).
The only exception to the above, is if the furnisher follows the certification requirements and the CRA provides the required notice to the consumer.
You can't skip the procedures, it is soooooooo huge, and fundamental to the FCRA and its enactment. CRA's are not held to absolute accuracy. They only have to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. To make a finding of negligent noncompliance (back to the Philibin snippet), you have to show they failed to follow reasonable procedures.
Here is the whole previously quoted snippet:
From Philbin:
The parties agree that a case of negligent noncompliance with 1681e(b) consists of four elements: (1) inaccurate information was included in a consumer's credit report; (2) the inaccuracy was due to defendant's failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy; (3) the consumer suffered injury; and (4) the consumer's injury was caused by the inclusion of the inaccurate entry.
See Morris v. Credit Bureau of Cincinnati, Inc., 563 F. Supp. 962, 967 (S.D. Ohio 1983); Bryant v. TRW, Inc., 487 F. Supp. 1234, 1238 (E.D. Mich. 1980), aff'd, 689 F.2d 72 (6th Cir. 1982). Defendants do not dispute they both produced at least one report that contained inaccurate information about Philbin. Nor do they contest that Philbin's emotional distress damages are cognizable. *fn3 See Guimond, 45 F.3d at 1333; Stevenson v. TRW Inc., 987 F.2d 288, 296 (5th Cir. 1993); Millstone v. O'Hanlon Reports, Inc., 528 F.2d 829, 834-35 (8th Cir. 1976).
Moreover, TUC apparently concedes that Philbin has satisfied his burden on summary judgment of producing facts from which a reasonable jury could infer that it did not follow reasonable procedures.
As other courts have held, "[a]llowing inaccurate information back onto a credit report after deleting it because it is inaccurate is negligent." Stevenson, 987 F.2d at 293; see also Morris, 563 F. Supp. at 968.
B) 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.
If the above doesn't happen (certification by the furnisher) and the notice to the consumer (from the CRA) isn't provided, there is NO reinsertion option.
You're giving to much credit and power to the furnisher, vghost, they don't make the rules, they FOLLOW the rules. The CRA's are always ultimately responsible.
The furnisher may try to report again or via monthly automated updates -- it is the responsibility of the CRA's to have procedures in place to suppress that information (cloaking) once deleted (based on a dispute initiated by a consumer via the CRA's) and without the required certification, if they do so.
BTW, deletions that occur in this manner and that are suppressed as required, cannot appear again, not even with the mortgage or employment exceptions.
Truly the benefit of deletions occurring via the dispute process versus settlement for deletion or anything similar.
C'mon jlynn (putting flowers in hair) we're flying!!!!!!!!! flap flap flap
Sassy
It's good to see ya, Sassy ... :-)
While I agree with everything you said (sounds weird, I know), as I mentioned few minutes ago, I wasn't sure about the interpretation of the word "verification". If you all say it's a written document with a signature, I'm off to the flower shop ... :-)
How about the questions I asked right before your post?
vghost,
I'm smellinggggggggg the flowers ;-)
What does verification have to do with anything in this thread?
I'm not following or not understanding the questions in your immediately previous post as they relate to reinsertion.
Sassy
Originally posted by sassyinaz
What does verification have to do with anything in this thread?
I'm not following or not understanding the questions in your immediately previous post as they relate to reinsertion. Let me try to explain ...
If the CRA has the certification from the DF, CRA can reinsert the TL. If the CRA doesn't have it - then they are in a violation.
Since "certification" is interpreted as a signed document, the other questions arised - what would happen if the CRA doesn't want to give us the proof they have this certification (by giving us a copy of it), and, if their refusal to show us the certification after our multiple requests could call for some kind of estoppel if we go to court.
I'm smellinggggggggg the flowers ;-)Too bad I can't send you anything from CN. But, if you dare to email me ... :-)
Originally posted by vghost
Let me try to explain ...
If the CRA has the certification from the DF, CRA can reinsert the TL. If the CRA doesn't have it - then they are in a violation.
Since "certification" is interpreted as a signed document, the other questions arised - what would happen if the CRA doesn't want to give us the proof they have this certification (by giving us a copy of it), and, if their refusal to show us the certification after our multiple requests could call for some kind of estoppel if we go to court.
Too bad I can't send you anything from CN. But, if you dare to email me ... :-)
The CRA is REQUIRED to have the certification to reinsert -- that triggers a notice to the consumer within 5 days. If the consumer gets a reinsertion letter (cough, cough), there is required to be certification. Deep doo doo for them should they be lying, whether they send a copy or not. Though I think it's a good idea to ask, there have been many a brain boggling thread on that.
It's just like the CRA's being required to notify the furnisher of the dispute with the relevant information provided to the consumer within 5-days. If the consumer didn't get the required notice for frivilous or irrelevant, there's a violation, whether the CRA will provide you evidence they did send the notice as REQUIRED or not.
Both go back to snippet from the Sheffer case, posted by Butch in another thread.
That a violation occurred is enough to survive a summary judgment and proceed to discovery.
I don't think it has been determined that certification requires a signature, Butch may think so and I don't disagree.
To report or make changes via UDF requires a signature -- that doesn't necessarily make it certified. I've never seen a certification of accuracy and completeness on a UDF form.
Flying with jlynn, that it has to be more than furnishing information monthly or in the regular course of business, because that process doesn't require a certification and until something is disputed or the CRA's have reason to know that the information may be inaccurate or incomplete, they've no liability for what they report, nor does the furnisher.
All responsibility is triggered by a dispute, either with the CRA directly and/or the furnisher directly.
Nothing says we have to dispute with the furnisher, it only lays a papertrail, exhausts all available means of consumer resolution, and eliminates the pointing of fingers -- the CRA's are always ultimately responsible.
That's why your argument that the OC can insist something be reported and legally won't work (from above, that's paraphrased). There is nothing that requires reporting at all, so there is no law that would allow them to do so.
And ultimately, if the information doesn't meet the reporting requirements, no matter the information or what the furnisher does or doesn't do, it can't be reported. The CRA's are required to have procedures in place to see that it doesn't -- that is what this speaks to, their procedures.
If something is reinserted with no notice to the consumer as required = violation = consumer can presume based on what is required, that there was no required certification, and whatever (if any) procedures the CRA's have in place to prevent it, weren't followed or weren't reasonable to begin with.
Actually, I think that is just what happens, the procedure for keeping something that has been deleted via a dispute from appearing again, appears to be a manual suppression and cloaking.
The furnisher reports via whatever their monthly mechanism is, the TL that was deleted appears again, without the required notice (violation), because the cloaking procedure isn't automated -- they CRA's only hope you never notice.
Sassy
Originally posted by sassyinaz
The furnisher reports via whatever their monthly mechanism is, the TL that was deleted appears again, without the required notice (violation), because the cloaking procedure isn't automated -- they CRA's only hope you never notice.
Sassy
So if the TL gets reported again and the CRA doesn't catch it and supress it, they are in violation unless they mailed me the reinsertion notice? But I guess if they didn't catch it they wouldn't have mailed a reinsertion notice. So to sum this all up, it could show up again but the CRA would have to mail me notice of reinsertion. It would also have to be certified to be true by the OC. I am a little confused on the certification part. Does the CRA have to provide me with proof that the OC certified it? You would think they would just to cover thier a**???
Originally posted by 242425
So if the TL gets reported again and the CRA doesn't catch it and supress it, they are in violation unless they mailed me the reinsertion notice?
yes!!!!!
But I guess if they didn't catch it they wouldn't have mailed a reinsertion notice.
They wouldn't be mailing a reinsertion notice unless they received a certification from the furnisher, nodding!
So to sum this all up, it could show up again but the CRA would have to mail me notice of reinsertion. It would also have to be certified to be true by the OC.
Yes, reinsertion isn't an option unless the furnisher certifies the accuracy and completeness of the information being submitted. IF that happens (highly unlikely) you would receive a reinsertion notice from the CRA's.
I am a little confused on the certification part. Does the CRA have to provide me with proof that the OC certified it?
No, that is what your notice would be based on.
You would think they would just to cover thier a**???
I agree, you would think so. Assuming there is any thinking going on at the CRA's, of course ;-)
Sassy
The CRA is REQUIRED to have the certification to reinsertRight, but the point is, they may have it, or they may not. Just think about it ...
They reinsert and they send you the notice. At this point you, the consumer, have no idea if they really have the certification. You've got few options:
1. Leave it as it is - you lose.
2. Dispute it again, they respond "verified" - you lose.
3. Request a copy of the certification from the CRA, they don't respond - you lose.
4. Request a copy of the certification from the DF, they don't respond - you lose.
5. Take them to the court, boom, they show the certification - you lose.
6. ???
So, back to my original questions:
1. What would happen if the CRA doesn't want to prove us they have this certification (by giving us a copy of it)?
2. Could their refusal to show us the certification after our multiple requests call for some kind of estoppel if we go to court?
I don't think it has been determined that certification requires a signature, Butch may think so and I don't disagree.So, we still don't know what actually a "certification" is ...
That's why your argument that the OC can insist something be reported ... won't work ... There is nothing that requires reporting at all, so there is no law that would allow them to do so.
And ultimately, if the information doesn't meet the reporting requirements ... it can't be reported.Hmm ... there is nothing that forbids reporting either, but Section 623(a)(1)(A) prohibits them from reporting inaccurate information and we are talking about a case, where the charge-off is the accurate information which meets the reporting requirements (to be accurate).
Still smelling the flowers?
:-)
Originally posted by vghost
Right, but the point is, they may have it, or they may not. Just think about it ...
They reinsert and they send you the notice. At this point you, the consumer, have no idea if they really have the certification.
You are wearing me out, vghost, and thinking too hard!!!!!!!
It does not matter if you the consumer have no idea if they really have the certification, they are REQUIRED to.
Sue them if you don't think so. What could you have to the contrary, something from the furnisher saying we didn't recertify and we won't -- that's not likely and counter to your argument in here.
You've got few options:
1. Leave it as it is - you lose.
2. Dispute it again, they respond "verified" - you lose.
3. Request a copy of the certification from the CRA, they don't respond - you lose.
4. Request a copy of the certification from the DF, they don't respond - you lose.
5. Take them to the court, boom, they show the certification - you lose.
6. ???
vghost, you just aren't getting this reasonable procedures thing.
None of your numbered options make sense.
So, back to my original questions:
1. What would happen if the CRA doesn't want to prove us they have this certification (by giving us a copy of it)?
Is the information accurate and complete, should be the question.
2. Could their refusal to show us the certification after our multiple requests call for some kind of estoppel if we go to court?
No, because they've no reason or obligation to respond to the request so relying on their not providing it would be misplaced.
So, we still don't know what actually a "certification" is ...
Hmm ... there is nothing that forbids reporting either, but Section 623(a)(1)(A) prohibits them from reporting inaccurate information and we are talking about a case, where the charge-off is the accurate information which meets the reporting requirements (to be accurate).
No, the charge-off has been deleted because the furnisher failed to meet the reporting requirements.
If it's not reported, it's neither accurate nor inaccurate, it's not there!!!!!!!
Still smelling the flowers?
Indeed I am, this is bordering on silly now.
Sassy
:-)
Originally posted by sassyinaz
Indeed I am, this is bordering on silly now.
Well, you might be right ... you are talking in general, based on your experience and thinking, I am talking about a specific case, based on the law ... Sorry to have bothered you.
vghost,
My apologies, you aren't bothering me.
The system is supposed to be fair (see the purpose and congressional findings).
You want to say that they aren't reporting a charge-off that is accurate.
If it was accurate, why did you dispute it all, and why are we having this conversation?
Not reporting the charge-off, that you say should be reporting because it would be accurate, is because as a furnisher they agree to play by the rules.
Playing by the rules means responding to disputes within the legal time-frames. They failed to do so or the information was inaccurate and it was deleted, as required.
If the furnisher doesn't like that, they have to certify the information and resubmit it. Then the consumer is required to get a notice within 5 days of that happening.
For a CRA to issue a reinsertion notice without their being certification as required, would be a big huge violation. Of course, they wouldn't provide you proof of having done that, BUT, just like with the notice of dispute required to be provided to the furnisher within 5 days, THAT is what discovery is for and knowing there was a violation is enough to get you there.
That is what is silly, not you.
Sassy
Originally posted by sassyinaz
My apologies, you aren't bothering me. No need to apologize, Sassy, but thank you anyway ... :-)
You want to say that they aren't reporting a charge-off that is accurate. It has been a long thread, so let me summarize the case ...
- I do have a charge-off.
- It is listed in my report.
- I dispute it with the CRA, they delete it (I don't know if they have failed to verify it, or I just got lucky).
- The DF reports the charge-off again in their regular course of business.
- The CRA reinserts it and sends me the notice.
If the CRA doesn't have the certification, yes, they are in a violation. But I don't know if they have it or not. As you said - that is what discovery is for, so the only way to find out if they have it is to take them to the court. But, we have to do that without actually knowing if they are in a violation. They may have the certification. Once they show it to the court, we have wasted our time and (most likely) our money. Besides, the charge-off stays in our report forever (because they have verified it).
This is what I've been trying to figure out. How to be sure they don't have the certification, so we can take them to the court without the risk of losing the case?
According to FRCP:
Rule 34. Production of Documents ...
(a) Any party may serve on any other party a request (1) to produce and permit the party making the request ... to inspect and copy, any designated documents ... which are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served;
So I started thinking about the Estoppel In Pais (AKA equitable estoppel) ...
A type of estoppel that bars a person from adopting a position in court that contradicts his or her past statements or actions when that contradictory stance would be unfair to another person who relied on the original position.
The estoppel application would be - I have requested several times the certification from the CRA, they didn't give it to me, therefore the equitable estoppel applies, therefore the certification cannot be used as an evidence anymore, therefore the CRA is in a violation.
So, what do you think?
certified ['sɜtˌfad]
adjective
1 - holding or guaranteed by a certificate
certificate
noun
[sə'tfkt]
1 - an official document attesting the truth of the facts stated.
.
You might be right about Estoppel Vlad. Wouldn't know until you try it.
.
Main Entry: certify
Pronunciation: 's&r-t&-"fI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fying
1 : to attest authoritatively: as a : confirm; b : to present in formal communication; c : to attest as being true or as represented or as meeting a standard
2 : to inform with certainty
:-)
Originally posted by Butch
You might be right about Estoppel Vlad. Wouldn't know until you try it. I know, Butch ... :-)
Even while interpreting the law, we assume it's going to be this or that way. We can't be sure what will actually happen unless we try it. But we can prepare ourselves ... :-)
P.S. BTW, what do you think about the last addition to your "What is Estoppel?"
vghost,
This all goes back to my question, is it accurate and complete or is it not?
Surely, if the TL were accurate and complete, you wouldn't be initiating legal action to see if they have the required certification or not.
You can't win an FCRA case if the information isn't inaccurate.
Sassy
Originally posted by sassyinaz
vghost,
This all goes back to my question, is it accurate and complete or is it not?
Surely, if the TL were accurate and complete, you wouldn't be initiating legal action to see if they have the required certification or not.
You can't win an FCRA case if the information isn't inaccurate.
Sassy
Don't know if this helps or not but the CO that I disputed is NOT correct. I am 99.9999999% positive that it isn't mine. It is from a bank called WF Bank out of California. I have never heard of them and can't find anything on the web for them. Only have a po box in Salinas CA. Can't even find a phone number for them. I am from a small town way up north and the only bank that I have done business with other than my local banks is discover.
Originally posted by 242425
Don't know if this helps or not but the CO that I disputed is NOT correct. I am 99.9999999% positive that it isn't mine. It is from a bank called WF Bank out of California. I have never heard of them and can't find anything on the web for them. Only have a po box in Salinas CA. Can't even find a phone number for them. I am from a small town way up north and the only bank that I have done business with other than my local banks is discover.
WF=WELLS FARGO
Originally posted by GEORGE
WF=WELLS FARGO
Checked with them already. They have never heard of me and don't show anything under my name or SSNumber ever. I have called every Wells Fargo listed in Salinas CA and none of the offices match what the WF Bank list's as their address.
Originally posted by 242425
Don't know if this helps or not but the CO that I disputed is NOT correct. I am 99.9999999% positive that it isn't mine. It is from a bank called WF Bank out of California. I have never heard of them and can't find anything on the web for them. Only have a po box in Salinas CA. Can't even find a phone number for them. I am from a small town way up north and the only bank that I have done business with other than my local banks is discover.
242425,
You can request the procedures for verification from the CRA's. Since it's been deleted, I'd not do it in this case (no verification or inaccurate = deletion) but remember that you can for other lines that don't so easily drop away.
Sassy
