Reply
Regular Contributor
Posts: 163
Registered: ‎03-10-2008
0

Re: Direct Dispute Process is now law

Robert,

 

So I had previously disputed through the old process to Toyota Financial Service (TFS), 3 erroneous 30 day late payments.  They "verified" the lates and that was that.  Until recently, I sent a direct dispute to TFS and cited FCRA 623(a)(8) and I requested documentation of the due date and date payment was received.  The lates are from 04 and 05. Stating if they could no supply the information I ask that they delete the late payment notations.

 

I received a letter this afternoon stating that I had previously disputed the information and unless I had new or relevant information they would consider the issue concluded with the late payments remaining.

 

Any suggestions on what to do from here? I was going to see if my bank can send me copies of the checks they received but I certainly don't have any statements with the due dates listed anymore.  Let me know how you think I should proceed at your convenience. 

 

Thanks.

Moderator
Posts: 17,149
Registered: ‎07-14-2009
0

Re: Direct Dispute Process is now law

IMO there is a typical loophole in the statutes.

 

 

FCRA 623(a)(8)(F)

Frivolous or Irrelevant Dispute


(i) In general. This paragraph shall not apply if the person receiving a notice of a dispute from a consumer reasonably determines that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, including--


(I) by reason of the failure of a consumer to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information; or


(II) the submission by a consumer of a dispute that is substantially the same as a dispute previously submitted by or for the consumer, either directly to the person or through a consumer reporting agency under subsection (b), with respect to which the person has already performed the person's duties under this paragraph or subsection (b), as applicable.


(ii) Notice of determination. Upon making any determination under clause (i) that a dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, the person shall notify the consumer of such determination not later than 5 business days after making such determination, by mail or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by any other means available to the person.

 

(iii) Contents of notice. A notice under clause (ii) shall include--


(I) the reasons for the determination under clause (i); and
(II) identification of any information required to investigate the disputed information, which may consist of a standardized form describing the general nature of such information.

 

That's what they are saying to you. Since you are submitting the same information (according to them) they can ignore you. I'm not sure how to get around this.

 

 

 

From a BK years ago to:
EX - 9/09 pulled by lender 802, EQ - 10/10-813, TU - 10/10-774

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem".

Regular Contributor
Posts: 151
Registered: ‎05-22-2010
0

Re: Direct Dispute Process is now law


iluvmyfico wrote:

Robert,

 

So I had previously disputed through the old process to Toyota Financial Service (TFS), 3 erroneous 30 day late payments.  They "verified" the lates and that was that.  Until recently, I sent a direct dispute to TFS and cited FCRA 623(a)(8) and I requested documentation of the due date and date payment was received.  The lates are from 04 and 05. Stating if they could no supply the information I ask that they delete the late payment notations.

 

I received a letter this afternoon stating that I had previously disputed the information and unless I had new or relevant information they would consider the issue concluded with the late payments remaining.

 

Any suggestions on what to do from here? I was going to see if my bank can send me copies of the checks they received but I certainly don't have any statements with the due dates listed anymore.  Let me know how you think I should proceed at your convenience. 

 

Thanks.


That's what I would do...of course, it might be easier to get copies of your bank statements first, unless you know exactly what check # and/or the date it was paid.

 

This new process is definitely not going to be as "easy" as the DV process we've all grown to love. Meaning, we, the consumers, have to be the ones to provide documentation...not the other way around, which is what the DV process is all about through the FDCPA. As complicated as it seems to be, I am glad that we now have a set guidance on how to deal with OCs, as well as CAs outside of the dunning period.

 

Thanks, Robert, for posting this thread...lots of good information! :smileyhappy:


Starting Score: EX: 661, EQ: 662, TU: 694 [Lender Pull 12/30/2010]
Current Score: EX: 665, EQ: 680, TU: 710
Goal Score: EX: 750+, EQ: 750+, TU: 750+

Take the FICO Fitness Challenge for 2011
Epic Contributor
Posts: 20,605
Registered: ‎03-19-2007
0

Re: Direct Dispute Process is now law

[ Edited ]

The handling of direct disputes where their has been a prior dispute of the information through the CRAs is detailed in the implementing rules at 16 C.F.R. 660.4(f)(ii).

It basically says the same thing as the statutory language quoted by marinevet, and says that the creditor may hold  the drect dispute as frivilous or irrelevant if:

"The direct dispute is substantially the same as a dispute previously submitted by or on behalf of the consumer, either directly to the furnisher, or through a consumer reporting agency, with respect to which the furnisher has already supplied the applicable requirements....."  They may cite either the FCRA or the CFR when holding a dispute as frivilous or irrelevant.

 

As to comparison with the DV process, there really is no comparison.  They are for totally different reasons.  DV's are to obtain validation of debt and cause cessation of active collection activities under the FDCPA, and have nothing to do with disputing items of information in a consumer's credit file.  Apples and oranges.

The real comparison is with the CRA dispute process under FCRA 611(a).   The huge advantage is use of the direct dispute process assures that information related to your dipute will be received by the creditor/CA.  The dispute process used by the CRAs, through their e-Oscar process, does not assure this.

Member
Posts: 5
Registered: ‎02-06-2013
0

Re: Direct Dispute Process is now law

Hi RobertEG:    Does the OC like BOA have the right to charge for any or all documents requested when disputing the accuracy of the information they are reporting like the amount owed?

Epic Contributor
Posts: 20,605
Registered: ‎03-19-2007
0

Re: Direct Dispute Process is now law

In any dispute, either direct or via a CRA, the consumer has no right to compel the furnisher to provide documentation of their verification of accuracy.

The dispute processes are not intended to be legal discovery processes.

 

The furnisher is required to conduct a reasonable investigation of the consumer's assertion of inaccuracy, and either state that they verify its accuracy, corrrect the information so as to overcome the inaccuracy, of if they cannot do either, delete the information until such time as they can verify the accuracy.

 

If they fail to conduct a reasonable investigation, and/or they knowingly verify the accuracy when the investigation does not support that conclusion, they leave themselves open to civil action for knowing violation of the FCRA. 

 

That may seem unfair, but consider the alternative of a statutory requirement to document their finding.  If the consumer considers the documentation to be insufficient, or that it does not support the conclusion reached by the furnisher, which will often occur, who will mediate the difference of opinion?

Neither dispute process established a "dispute court" to decide such issues. They are administrative processes to at least assure the consumer that a reasonable investigation has been conducted, and that the furnisher is reasonably verifying based on those facts.  Thus, compelling the production of evidence is not required. 

That is reserved for the legal discovery process available thru the courts.

Advertiser Disclosure: The listings that appear on myFICO are from companies from which myFICO receives compensation, which may impact how and where products appear on myFICO (including, for example, the order in which they appear). myFICO does not review or include all companies or all available products.
† Credit cards for FICO Score ranges: The score ranges are guidelines based on actual applicant approvals and having a FICO Score in a particular range does not guarantee you will be approved for credit cards recommended in that range.

Copyright ©2001-2015 Fair Isaac Corporation. All rights reserved.   | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Sitemap

IMPORTANT INFORMATION: All FICO® Score products made available on myFICO.com include a FICO® Score 8, along with additional FICO® Score versions. Your lender or insurer may use a different FICO® Score than the versions you receive from myFICO, or another type of credit score altogether. Learn more

FICO, myFICO, Score Watch, The score lenders use, and The Score That Matters are trademarks or registered trademarks of Fair Isaac Corporation. Equifax Credit Report is a trademark of Equifax, Inc. and its affiliated companies. Many factors affect your FICO Score and the interest rates you may receive. Fair Isaac is not a credit repair organization as defined under federal or state law, including the Credit Repair Organizations Act. Fair Isaac does not provide "credit repair" services or advice or assistance regarding "rebuilding" or "improving" your credit record, credit history or credit rating. FTC's website on credit.