cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

623 response. .sort of

tag
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: 623 response. .sort of


@Anonymous wrote:

605B is a subpart of FCRA regulating Identity Theft Blocking of Information.

Please take a quick look at this if you have time.

 

http://identitytheftnetwork.org/Toolkit/TrainingMaterials/NITVANTrainTheTrainers/HandoutsForAttendees/FTC-GuidebookForAssistingIDVictimsBlockingInfo.pdf

 

Although a FTC affidavit is often demanded, a valid (detailing incident, status of information, your position on its validation and dates of occurance) Police Report, a copy of your DL and your identification of information that need to be blocked will be sufficient to have that information blocked. 


605B requires FOUR things. Here is the actual text:
(a) Block. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than 4 business days after the date of receipt by such agency of –

(1) appropriate proof of the identity of the consumer;

(2) a copy of an identity theft report;

(3) the identification of such information by the consumer; and

(4) a statement by the consumer that the information is not information relating to any transaction by the consumer.

Item number 4 is whats commonly referred to as the "FTC Affidavit" and it most certainly is one of the required items.

Note the word "shall" is used. That means it is NOT a request of the consumer, and the CRA has no discretion in the matter, it is a requirement under the law if the four items are provided.

Message 11 of 17
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: 623 response. .sort of

 

In my personal experience, I did just fine with number 1-3.

In terms of Affidavit, I just wrote a three sentences statement inside the cover letter. It all went fine with all three.

Here the burdon of documentation and evidence was met very well by item 1- 3.

 

Message 12 of 17
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: 623 response. .sort of

You are correct that a simple statement is *really* all that is required. An affidavit just makes for a stronger case, should they balk - and they do sometimes... Theres been more than one person thats had to drag them into court over this sort of thing.

Message 13 of 17
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: 623 response. .sort of

Additional conditions under which a CRA may decline or rescind a block are specified in section 605B(c) as follows:

 

"FCRA 605B (c) Authority to Decline or Rescind

(1) In general.  A consumer reporting agency may decline to block, or may rescind any block, of information relating to a consumer under this sectiion, if the consuer reporting agency reasonably determimes that -

(A) the information was blocked in error or a block was requested by the consumer in error;

(B) the information was blocked, or a block was reqquested by the consumer, on the basis of a material misrepresentation of fact by the consumer relevant to the request to block; or

(C) the consumer obtained possession of good, services, or money as a result of teh blocked transation or transactions."

 

Message 14 of 17
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: 623 response. .sort of

Thanks for all of the great advice. You people are awesome! 

Message 15 of 17
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: 623 response. .sort of

By law they have 30 days to respond to a 623 letter..  They failed so the OP should file a complaint with the original dispute to the CRA's and 623 letter and response to the CFPB.    

Message 16 of 17
RobertEG
Legendary Contributor

Re: 623 response. .sort of

I would not recommend pursuing a complaint of lack of proper handing of the dispute, such as lack of timely response.

They did respond, but they did not provide a finding of the results of an investigation of the disputed information.

 

They could remedy that issue by clarification that their response was intended to be a proper dismissal of the dispute as being substantially the same as a prior dispute.

The consumer was not entitled to a second investigation of substnatially the same information, so I would not recommend pursuing the timeliness of something they were not required to do.  It is a secondary matter at this point.

 

Perhaps it might result in a slap on the wrist by the CFPB, but it is not likely to help you as the consumer.

Message 17 of 17
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.