topic Re: MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute. in Rebuilding Your Credit

MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute.

jerrod76 — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 04:01:16 GMT

Hey yall,, MCM sends me requests for more info instead of processing online disputes. I know enough not to send them anything. But fcra says they can either update, delete or block info regarding disputes. I cant find ANYWHERE that says they can refuse and request more info instead. Do they have legal standing? Or is it a fcra violation? Thanks:):)):

Re: MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute.

IOBA — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 18:38:40 GMT

I dunno. But it is sneaky of them to ask for more personal information before they validate.

How much information did you provide to them regarding the dispute? An account number? Your first and last name?

I would never provide more information that what is provided to you from them. That should be enough for them to look up the account and provide "verification".

Re: MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute.

annielorie — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 01:06:28 GMT

The responsibility is theirs do not help them gather more information they must validate or stop reporting. They must show proof not you

Re: MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute.

chasmith — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 01:11:04 GMT

I would respond something like this (snail mail, CMRRR):

"You made a report to the Credit Bureau. If you made that report without sufficient knowledge of its accuracy you have already violated the Fasir Credit Reporting Act. Failing to promptly delete the reporting when you have confirmed you cannot verify by your letter dated MM/DD/YYYY is a second violtaion. Please confirm prompt deltion of your improper reporting."

Re: MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute.

Ravensfan2001 — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:32:29 GMT

chasmith wrote:
I would respond something like this (snail mail, CMRRR):

"You made a report to the Credit Bureau. If you made that report without sufficient knowledge of its accuracy you have already violated the Fasir Credit Reporting Act. Failing to promptly delete the reporting when you have confirmed you cannot verify by your letter dated MM/DD/YYYY is a second violtaion. Please confirm prompt deltion of your improper reporting."

I think this is so funny. I disputed online with all 3 CRAs, and they're also asking me for more information. So can the letter that MCM sent to me today be proof that they cannot verify? Also, what information do they need to provide to validate a debt? In my letter, they have T-Mobile for $1067.53. I don't believe I owe them that much. But I don't have any of my own records from my T-Mobile account. So how do I handle this? (I'm sort of new at repairing my credit)

Re: MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute.

IOBA — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 03:47:13 GMT

I have had CA's demand my full name, DOB, ss #, address, phone number, employer information, and a copy of the bill I was disputing. Huh? Seriously - they wanted me to provide all the information to them that they did not have. I don't think (and it's been years since this has happened) that any of them could ever verify the debt. And I did refuse to provide more information. My stance was - they had enough information to put it on my CR and to send me a letter - then when I provided to them what information they provided to me in the first place (dunning notice), then they had enough information to pull up the account and verify. I think (again, it's been years) that in each case the CA stopped trying to collect and removed from CR. In each and every case - I did not owe the money.

Lol - if they insist they can only look up the account by your social security number, laugh. Same with DOB, address, etc. The dunning notice has an account number on it. That should be good enough.

As for your debt, it sounds like you acknowledge you owe some money, just unsure of the amount. How old is the debt?

Re: MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute.

chasmith — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:29:47 GMT

If your objective is to get the reporting deleted, I would start with a letter along the lines I suggested, possibly as a "623 Letter" to the furnisher.

You could send a "method of Verification" letter to the CRA(s) citing MCM's claim they cannot identify you even though they posted to your account. There's a court precedent saying CRAs may not just "parrot" verification by furnishers.

Do this all by snail mail, CMRRR.

Re: MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute.

RobertEG — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:23:30 GMT

It is not improper, per se, for a party who is required to investigate a dispute to assert that the consumer has not provided adequate information for them to conduct a reasonable investigation of the accuracy of the information.

The direct dispute process provides specific provision for them to do so by simply holding the dispute frivolous or irrelevant, identifying to the best of their ability what is lacking. However, your dispute was not a direct dispute.

When disputes are referred to them via a CRA, they could respond that the dispute has inadequate supporting documentation to conduct a reasonable investigation. However, they would then have to rely on the CRA agreeing, and thus holding the dispute as frivolous or irrelevant, as they dont have that authority when disputes are being handled by the CRA. They should not ask the consumer for more info, they should request the CRA to dismiss the dispute.

Re: MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute.

jerrod76 — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 08:44:26 GMT

Heres the part thats weird to me. THey are saying they cannot begin an investigation without more information. I would understand if they wanted more info to complete an already begun investigation. But to say they wont do it until i give them info they re supposed to have? Seems fishy to me

Re: MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute.

IOBA — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 01:49:06 GMT

Again, i would go back to them with the exact information that they provided to you and say that should be sufficient for them to conduct their investigation. If they insist on more information, tell them no. Tell them that was enough for them to send you a dunning notice and to put it on your credit report. If they still insist on more information, insist they delete since they can not validate.

Re: MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute.

tmobileguy — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 02:08:06 GMT

Exactly, the CA is admitting that they cannot validate if the information they are giving you is not sufficient for them to research it.

They report info about you on your credit report.

You dispute said information and give them the exact information that they reported for their reference to so they can validate.

They tell you the information is not enough and they need more to be able to start the process or they can't validate.

They have just admitted that what they have is not enough to validate the account by their own words.

Re: MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute.

tlwinkles379 — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:05:33 GMT

Stay on it. They did this to me twice when I sent a DV letter. Ignore the letter. After 30 days, send a second demand just to cover your tracks. At the same time I did this, I filed a complaint with the BBB of San Diego. This got their attorney involved. He uses a lot of legal speak stating they aren't required to provide you with information since it's been over 30 days since they acquired the account. I threatened to sue in federal court through the BBB response. I also reminded them that they had just lost a HUGE suit for the same reasons and I cited the case. After that I received a letter stating they were ceasing all collection activities until they could validate and that they were suspending credit reporting. That seemed to be their legal way to back out without admitting they were breaking the law. Oh well, I got my way. I forwarded that letter to all the CRAs and it was off my reports within a week.

Re: MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute.

RobertEG — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:37:28 GMT

I disagree that stating the information provided is insufficient to investigate is the same as saying they cannot verify

The direct dispute rules, for example, make explicit provision for a furnisher to dismiss a dispute based on the lack of sufficient information to investigate an asserted inaccuracy. A dispute that simply states..."I dispute the accuracy, verify it is accurate" is dismissible without investigation on their part as being "frivolous or irrelevant."

However, in the case of a dispute through the CRA, the furnisher is not the ultimate decision maker, and thus the CRA is the ultimate decision maker.

FCRA 623(a)(8) states that the duty to investigate a dispute forwarde to them by a CRA does not apply if the consumer failed to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information.

When disputing through a CRA, they have a statutory requirement to respond back to the CRA, not the consumer. If they choose to inform the CRA that the information provided is insufficient for them to conduct a reasonable investigation, it then becomes the obligation of the CRA to either agree and dismiss the dispute, or to conclude in their reinvestigation that the information was sufficient, and thus they have falied to verify.

The problem with their handling was that it was apparently a CRA dispute, and thus their assertion of inablity to investigate should be provided to the CRA, not the consumer.

Re: MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute.

tmobileguy — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:19:35 GMT

Can you provide a link or the name of the case that you referenced...Im about to go to bat with midland and want as much ammunition as I can get...

Re: MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute.

serenitybreeze — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:34:30 GMT

You need to dispute (send validation request) directly with MCM, rather than using the online dispute. I think you are a little mixed up about dispute vs validation.

Re: MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute.

tlwinkles379 — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:13:40 GMT

http://m.thelangelfirm.com/Debt-Defense-Blog/2012/April/-723-000-jury-verdict-sticks-against-Midland-Cre.aspx

Also the West Virginia AG recently filed suit against them.

Re: MCM wanting more information instead of processing dispute.

mamawishbone — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 02:32:57 GMT

Any updates on this? I just received a similar letter and am trying to determin how to respond.