Scarlet, I am POSITVE that your prediction will occur! I agree with you!
Your points are very well taken.
The credtiors hate the new direct dispute process, and will use any means to oppose it, particularly in its current infancy. That is why it took five years to get it implmented!
They LOVED the shiield of the E-Oscar dispute process that is now required dispute first through the CRAs.
The point is that if you do a direct dispute, be complete in your original submission.
A dispute qualifies as frivolous or irrelevant if:
(i) The consumer did not provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information as required by paragraph (d) of this section;
Be complete in the facts presented to the creditor, Fully identify yourself, the account numbers, the disputed information, and the basis for the dispute. That satisfies the statute..
(ii) 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 satisfied the applicable requirements of the Act or this section; provided, however, that a direct dispute is not substantially the same as a dispute previously submitted if the dispute includes information listed in paragraph (d) of this section that had not previously been provided to the furnisher; or
Dont expect a direct dispute resolution of information previously disputed. It is an original dispute, not a redispute process.
Dismissal of a direct dispute on the grounds of asserted frivilousness or irrelevancy may be the first thing we see, but that is a minor "out" for compliance that wont last long.
Their major concern is their loss of E-Oscar reducxtion of disputes to a three digit code.
Points well taken..but, even being prepared will not help if OC's and CRA's are pre-occupied with being obstinate. My battle with HSBC right now is going nowhere, despite my being prepared beyond belief and having a long paper trail, because HSBC simply states to call Collect America and not address FCRA statutes and consumer demands. I am going to pound on them mercilessly....
That is why there wil be another major forum category on this site, within the next month, on dealing with the new direct dispute process.
It is, absolutely, going to become a battle with the creditors about what is and is not compliance.
But creditors are diverse. If consumers know now, both the value of the new rules, and how to comply, we are not dealing dealing with a centralized point of focus, such as one of the three CRAs.
I see major improvements.
Creditors are decentralized. They dont have the centralized knowledge contained in the CRAs for addressing disputes, and in my opinion, if they choose to first dispute intiial direct disputes as being irrelevant, that is why we must first include, in direct dirsputes, all relevant information.
The direct dispute opportunity is something that Congress has given us.
It is on the eve of July 4th If we responsiby understand and use it, FCRA 623 is putting almost a decade of new rights into hour hands.
If we DONT use it responsibly, it just means that millions of dollars were wasted, and many hours of Congressional time was wasted.
I just happen to see the right to dispute directly with the party you have the beef with to be Law School 101.
That's pretty interesting. I had always disputed the collection agency upfront. I believe in always going to the source of the problem. I have always gotten a response from the Collection agency, even to the point of them removing the Acct from my CRA. They say, " The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword"...
The pen tis' mightier than the sword...but only if CRA's and CA's read the correspondence..I have found they do not. Maybe they can't because the concepts are too complex for them to make sense of!
OK so I have begun my first direct dispute by sending a letter to the OC CMRR. I will see if they reply.
My question is, what if they DON'T reply within 30 days? Do I just speak with my lawyer about sending a letter with an intent to sue?
Any help would be much appreciated.
Once you file a direct dispute under FCRA23(a)(8), the party who have have directly disputed with has a legal obligatiio to respond within 30-days of your didpute.
FCRA 623 (a)(8)(E)(iii),
I will reinterate, not my persoal opinions, but the Congression testimomy submiited by the consumer support legal experts,.
If you want to really understand the faults in credt repirting , just read;
Written Testimony Before The
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
"Fair Credit Reporting Act: How it Functions for Consumers and the Economy"
June 19, 2007
Submitted by: Leonard A. Bennett
Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C.
Here is a very simple, yet complete, sample direct dipute letter that, in my opinon, fully coplies with the new rules:
Again, being a direct dispute, it should NOT be sent to a CRA., It is sent directly to the party who posted the disputed information to you credit repirt.
“This is a Notice of Direct Dispute with you, under the provisions of FCRA 623(a)(8)(D), of the accuracy of information you have posted to my credit file.
“In compliance with FCRA 623(a)(8)(D), and enacting regulations published at 74 Fed Reg 31484 (July 1, 2009), this Notice includes:
“Identification of the specific information being disputed:
(specify the account number, and the specific information that iis related to the dipsuted informatiion
“Basis for the dispute:
(how the reporting was inaccurate; based on any statutory or regulatory provisions?)
(all documents that support your dispute; make sure to include,
as part of your documentation, a copy of the portion of your
recent credit report showing their reporting of the
“Under the provisions of FCRA 623(a)(8)(E), you have the duty to review all of the information in this Notice of Dispute, to complete your investigation, and report back to me the results of your investigation, within 30-days of my Notice of Dispute..”
For those interested, the final rules have now been incorporated into and published under the Code of Federal Regulations at:
16 C.F.R. 660.4