I presume that "she disputed, they verified" refers to a first dispute made via the CRA. She then sent a dispute directly to the debt collector, and it was returned as not received.
With that scenario, I would question how in the world the CRA was able to contact the debt collector, and she was not.
When a dispute is made through the CRA, they are required to send a copy of the dispute to the furnisher of the information, in this case the debt collector, within 5 days of receiving the dispute, and the furnisher is required to respond back to the CRA before the end of the 30-day reinvestigation period imposed on the CRA.
Either that process was not followed, or else the CRA verified without having received the required response from the debt collector. Something doesnt jive.
How would I handle it? I would send the CRA a method of verification ("MOV") letter under FCRA 611(a)(6)(B)(iii) and 611(a)(7), requring that they provide a "description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information." Specifically, I would ask:
Who, how, and when did they provide the required "Notice of Dispute to Furnisher of Information" to the debt collector, as required under FCRA 611(a)(2)(A)?
If they did so, what was the means of communication, and if transmitted electronically, the address used.
Did the debt collector ever report back the results of their investigatin to the CRA after receiving the Notice of Dispute, as is clearly required of them under FCRA 623(b)?
If so, what was their reported result?
I would make them, through the MOV process, explain how and when they communicated with the debt collector.
If they did not, there may be basis for challenging the adequacy of their verification of the prior dispute. But get the facts first.
As for return of the direct dispute, the direct dispute rules, at 16 CFR 660.4(c), specify the direct dispute address to be used by the consumer, and that if mailed to that address, the furnisher is required to investigate the dispute. The addresses for submission are:
1.the address of the furnisher, as provided in the consumer's credit report
2.an address clearly provided to the consumer for sending direct disputes,
3 if the furnisher has not provided the consumer such an address, then any business address of the furnisher
Since the CRAs are not a part of the direct dispute process, it is a bit dicey on the furnisher's liability regarding their credit reporting should they not collect mail at an athorized address, or provided to the consumer an specific statement of an address for sending direct disputes. I doubt that the CRA would get entangled in that mess.
I think it would be best to challenge the earlier CRA dispute process. It might result in their deletion.
