topic Re: Method Of Verification (MOV) in General Credit Topics

Method Of Verification (MOV)

Noah_Bodie — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:36:36 GMT

When a CRA won't do it's job by investigating and correcting or deleting inaccurate info, MOV is available to you.

With MOV, you might have to actually sue the CRA, or at least threaten it. They don't seem to freely comply with this area of the law. FCRA § 611(a)(6) and (7). 15 USC 1681i
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=15&sec=1681i

1. Dispute with the CRA. Since you might have to sue or threaten it, a CMRRR dispute is best so there's proof you can show to a judge. If you have any written records disproving the inaccurate reporting, include them.

2. If verified, with a copy of the investigation results in hand (either mailed copy of the investigation report or printed copy of your online investigation report), call the CRA.

3. Give them the reference number and ask for method of verification under FCRA Section 611(a)(7). They might play dumb. Paper copies of EX and EQ contain a statement of your rights for MOV, at least in Washington state. You might point that out to them. YMMV.

Statement from EQ paper report- "To request the credit reporting agency to provide you with a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information disputed, including the name, business address, and telephone number of the person or business contacted during the reinvestigation"

Statement from EX paper report - "The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act states that you may request a description of how we verified the information, including the business name and address contacted and the telephone number if reasonably available"

4. The CRA will likely have never called the OC. They generally rely upon a third party database to verify. They may or may not admit this to you. Ask for the name, address and phone number of anyone contacted.

5. Call the OC and ask them about their records. If the person you speak with at the OC cannot doesn't have any records to support the inaccurate reporting, get their name and direct line. You might have to ask for a supervisor and get their name. Frontline phone reps are often "ghosts" known only by a first name. If they claim to have records, demand a copy of them under FACTA.

6. If you are sent records, review them and see whether they support the CRA's reporting. If they don't support the reporting, proceed to the next step.

7. If the OC has no records, or inconclusive records that don't support the inaccurate reporting, call the CRA and tell them the OC has no records to support their reporting. Tell the CRA you want a new dispute. The new info for the dispute is the name and number of the person at the OC with whom you spoke.

8. If they refuse to open a dispute, tell them you will sue for willful non-compliance under FCRA § 616. If they still refuse, send the information via CMRRR along with an ITS letter.

9. If they open a dispute over the phone, get the new confirmation number. Write down the confirmation number, the time & date of your call, and the name of the rep at the CRA with whom you spoke. They might also be a "ghost" and you might have to ask for a supervisor to get a name.

10. Once the investigation is complete, if the inaccurate info remains, then send an ITS letter to the CRA. Give 'em 10 days, then either file suit yourself in small claims or contact a consumer lawyer and see about filing in federal court. naca.net or myfaircredit.com are two good sources of consumer lawyers for debt and credit issues.

Message Edited by Noah_Bodie on 09-06-2007 09:36 PM

Re: Method Of Verification (MOV)

MercyMe — Sat, 19 May 2007 23:25:16 GMT

Quick question, Noah_bodie .... before I continue to read this ... Are you in Washington State? Now I'll keep reading....

You're amazing. I've read it. Copied it. Am going to make a list and follow it. Thank you, a thousand times ... thank you.

Message Edited by MercyMe on 05-19-2007 04:25 PM

Re: Method Of Verification (MOV)

Noah_Bodie — Sun, 20 May 2007 03:52:26 GMT

Yep, I'm an Evergreen Stater.

Re: Method Of Verification (MOV)

MercyMe — Sat, 26 May 2007 07:53:25 GMT

Wow, Noah. The good black earth of Washington State is still so deeply embedded within the soles of my feet. I was born in the Dakotas, but grew up in Washington... and there remains my heart. Many of my relatives are there, scattered between Tacoma and Walla Walla. My mother's long since buried in Toppenish. I hope to go back this summer. Take the kids. They've been all up the east coast, and into Canada -- but they've never seen real trees, or real mountains ... you know? I still cry when I watch the likes of Harry and the Henderson's. :O) Send me a box of dirt, and a couple of chunks of granite, will ya? Double :).

Re: Method Of Verification (MOV)

MercyMe — Sat, 26 May 2007 08:22:33 GMT

Hey, Noah. I could cry, not being the sort to argue with anyone, though surely I do so love a good debate -- but anyway. Upon insisting that 2 of the three CRAS provide their MOV, it didn't surprise me to learn that of course everything's verified electronically, so of course the bad information continues to update/verify. I didn't confront TransUnion, as they have the info fairly correct, with the exception of the account being closed.

It so helps to know the law when you speak to these people, and they get a bit terse and shaken when you start quoting Code. I have disputed and argued for the very last time, having disputed repeatedly, over the course of the past two years, and have been busy, the last few days, compiling proofs to substantiate my case which I have presented to an attorney (firm) who has agreed to represent me on a contingency basis should the OC/CRAS fail to make corrections, promised within 10 days, to my credit reports.

This isn't about money. God knows I don't need any of that to mess up my life -- well, my little boy's life, as he's dependent upon SSI and FL Medicaid. The SSI we could do without, but the Medicaid, he could not, and any semi-substantial amount of money would put that, and him, at risk. So this is about principle. This is about MOV indeed, and so that this might be less likely to happen to someone else, as desperate as I am, as we all are, for fairly decent credit scores.

For all of the money I've dumped into checking and rechecking my credit, on line, and monitorring, Equifax and Experian could have hired someone to make the calls to verify the information being disputed, you know? And I don't quite understand how it is that the info TransUnion reports, on this Sun Trust account, and which hasn't updated since 2003, can be so different from what's being reported to Experian and Equifax, or how the information can change, and has, with these 2 CRAS, over the course of the past three years, in the way of such things as the DOLA, or how it can be that in their own comments/remarks they indicate/agree that the account has been paid and closed, yet they knock me with brand new/recent lates and recurring charge offs, as they did again, 04/2007. How is that possible? I just can't fight them alone, anymore. I'm tired, and I'm fresh out of time, having hoped my scores would be such that I'd be able to buy a new car that would get me and my little boy to The Hope Center in Jacksonville, without the fear of breaking down, and he and his two older brothers who have put so much time into helping me with him, across country this summer. Is that too much to ask, Noah?

Re: Method Of Verification (MOV)

Noah_Bodie — Sat, 26 May 2007 19:31:13 GMT

MercyMe,

Because an attorney has taken your case, that tells me they think either the OC the CRA or both are in violation of law. I have one that I've grown tired of, and I'm gonna talk to an attorney.

Re: Method Of Verification (MOV)

MercyMe — Sun, 27 May 2007 11:32:54 GMT

A bodie's gotta do what a bodie's gotta do, sometimes, huh Noah? And no matter how difficult that may be. Just pull everything you got on this account. Credit reports that list it. Credit alerts that pertain to it. Copies of whatever payment documentation you have. My best evidences are my credit reports/alerts that date back a couple of years. One CRA even lists this account as OPEN. Good gravy. Do whatcha gotta do, and keep me posted, my friend.

Re: Method Of Verification (MOV)

sidewinder — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:33:56 GMT

Moved to new thread. "Disputed and verified, need help with MOV" on the Rebuilding Your Credit forum.

Re: Method Of Verification (MOV)

nicktheman — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:55:13 GMT

What's an ITC letter?

Re: Method Of Verification (MOV)

Booner72 — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 03:22:26 GMT

Thanks for this post, Lightin.

What is an ITS letter?

Re: Method Of Verification (MOV)

Balbanes — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 06:11:52 GMT

this post is an oldie.

ITS letter is Intent/Intend To Sue.

Re: Method Of Verification (MOV)

RobertEG — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:28:47 GMT

The CRA has a statutory requirement under FCRA 611(a)(2))A) as follows:

"Before the expiration of the five business-day period beginning on the date on which a consumer reporting agency receives notice of a dispute from any consumer or reseller in accordance with paragraph (1), the agency shall provide a 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 or reseller."

There is no question that, even if the CRA conducts its own reinvestigation from other soureces, they are still required to send notice of the dispute along with all relevant information that you provide to any party who has reported any information covered under the dispute.

An MOV request under section 611(a)(6)(B)(iii) must provide, at a minimum, a showing that they communicated your dispute and supporting information to the party who reported the disputed information. They must provide a descprition of the procedure used to make their determination.

Additionaly, under section 623(b)(2), the furnisher of the disputed information is then under a required statutory period to respond back to the CRA prior to the expiration of the CRAs reinvestigation period So the issue of receipt of the statutority required response from the furnisher is also, in my opinion, part of the 'procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information,' and thus to a legitimate part of your MOV request.

I would argue that a response to any MOV request that fails to disclose forwarding relevant information regarding your dispute is a prima facie violation of section 611(a)(6)(B)(iii), and thus would be grounds for holding them in lack of compliance with the required reinvestigation of your dispute.