CA says they have no knowledge of the account the placed on my reports????

[mrsgavin]

I called up Account Resolution Services about a recent medical collection. I told them my phone records every call.  I said I was calling to find about a recent entry to my credit reports.  They told me about an old debt from 2010. That account has actually fallen off of my Equifax  and Experian  reports, but is still listed on TU.  Anyways, I told her that they had recently placed a collection account on my TU report this year.  She said that I was mistaken and that no account was placed on my report by them, and they have no knowledge of this debt.   How should I proceed? 

[Anonymous]

Dispute the account, to have it deleted as not being valid.

[mrsgavin]

Thanks!  If they verify with the CRA, I am going to sue them in small claims court.

[Anonymous]

---

@mrsgavin wrote:

Thanks!  If they verify with the CRA, I am going to sue them in small claims court.

---

On what grounds and for what dollar amount?

[RobertEG]

If they have stated to you that they have no record of a debt asserted to be yours that is under their collection, then they have a statutory requirement under FCRA 623(a)(2) to promptly update their credit reporting to maintain the current accuracy of the information.

Update would, under the CRA reporting guidelines, require deletion of the reported collection, as they do not have active collection authority.

As of this point, you only have oral statements.  File a dispute of the accuracy of their current reporting, which requires the CRA to forward the dispute to thtem, and for their conduct of a reasonable investigation of the accuracy, and forwarding of their determination back to the CRA.  You then have a formal finding.

If their finding is one of verification, it is presumtuous on your part to assume their prior oral statement was factual, and their current verification is knowingly false.

A formal dispute compels formal response, and would be presumed as their formal finding.

You would need evidence to contest their verification, should they make that determination.

Any civil action would be on the basis of their lack of proper investigatin/verification of your dispute, not for their reportng of the collection.

A consumer has no right to bring their own civil action on the basis that a party has knowngly reported inaccurate information.  Only a government agency can bring direct action for knowingly or negligently inaccurate reporting.  See FCRA 623(c) and (d) and 621(a) for limitations on civil actions/liability for reporting of information to a CRA.

So yes, should you wish to pursue civil action, you must first file a dispute, and then bring action for their lack of reasonable investigation of your assertion of inaccuracy of their reporting. The other option is to get the FTC or CFPB to bring civil action for the asserted intentional misreporting.

[Anonymous]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

If they have stated to you that they have no record of a debt asserted to be yours that is under their collection, then they have a statutory requirement under FCRA 623(a)(2) to promptly update their credit reporting to maintain the current accuracy of the information.

Update would, under the CRA reporting guidelines, require deletion of the reported collection, as they do not have active collection authority.

As of this point, you only have oral statements.  File a dispute of the accuracy of their current reporting, which requires the CRA to forward the dispute to thtem, and for their conduct of a reasonable investigation of the accuracy, and forwarding of their determination back to the CRA.  You then have a formal finding.

If their finding is one of verification, it is presumtuous on your part to assume their prior oral statement was factual, and their current verification is knowingly false.

A formal dispute compels formal response, and would be presumed as their formal finding.

You would need evidence to contest their verification, should they make that determination.

Any civil action would be on the basis of their lack of proper investigatin/verification of your dispute, not for their reportng of the collection.

A consumer has no right to bring their own civil action on the basis that a party has knowngly reported inaccurate information.  Only a government agency can bring direct action for knowingly or negligently inaccurate reporting.  See FCRA 623(c) and (d) and 621(a) for limitations on civil actions/liability for reporting of information to a CRA.

So yes, should you wish to pursue civil action, you must first file a dispute, and then bring action for their lack of reasonable investigation of your assertion of inaccuracy of their reporting. The other option is to get the FTC or CFPB to bring civil action for the asserted intentional misreporting.

---

Robert - Has this "limit" actually been tested and upheld by the courts? The reason I ask is that I read 632 (c) and (d) as well as 621 (a), and it specifically says the named agencies have "enforcement" authority, and then goes on to establish the limits on civil penalties that the government agencies may seek. What I didn't see was a SPECIFIC prohibition of individuals to seek redress for damages caused by the negligent actions of a furnisher. For instance - I personally do not have "enforcement authority" for traffic laws - but if a person violates those laws, I have the right to seek redress in civil court for any damages that result from that persons violation of traffic laws. Would not that same concept apply here? Obviously one would have to demostrate "actual" damages from the furnisher's violation of law.

[mrsgavin]

If it comes back verified through TU.  Reasons: deliberately reporting inaccurate info to a CRA (FCRA violation) and Misrepresenting the legal character of the Debt (FDCPA violation).  That would be 2*1000

[RobertEG]

“The Plaintiff has alleged that Honda violated § 623(a)(1)(A) of the statute, which states in pertinent part that "[a] person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate."15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(A). There is, however, no private right of action under subsection (a). See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(c)(1) ("sections [15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o] do not apply to any violation of . . . subsection (a) of this section"); see also Beattie v. Nations Credit Fin. Servs. Corp., No. 02-1744, 2003 WL 21480586, at *5 (4th Cir. May 27, 2003); Gibbs v. SLM Corp., 336 F.Supp.2d 1, 11 (D. Mass. 2004); Zotta v. NationsCredit Fin. Servs. Corp., 297 F.Supp.2d 1196, 1204 n. 6 (E.D. Mo. 2003);Stafford v. Cross Country Bank, 262 F.Supp.2d 776, 782-83 (W.D.Ky. 2003); Carney v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 57 F.Supp.2d 496, 502 (W.D. Tenn. 1999). Subsection (d) limits enforcement of the provisions of § 1681s-2(a) exclusively to "Federal agencies and officials and . . . State officials . . ."15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(d); Gibbs, 336 F.Supp.2d at 11; Zotta,297 F.Supp.2d at 1204 n. 6. As the Plaintiff cannot maintain an action under § 1681s-2(a), the Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to that claim is GRANTED.

"Unlike subsection (a), some courts have assumed § 1681s-2(b) is amenable to consumer lawsuits. See Downs v. Clayton Homes, Inc., Nos. 03-5259, 03-6055, 2004 WL 253363, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2004) (court assumed for purposes of motion that a private right of action existed under subsection (b)); Young v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., Inc., 294 F.3d 631, 629 (5th Cir. 2002) (without deciding the issue, the court noted that § 1681s-2(b) "it appears" to impose civil liability permitting a private right of action); Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2002) (based on language of the statute and legislative history, court concluded private right of action *44 exists under subsection (b)); Gibbs, 336 F.Supp.2d at 11 ("While there is not unanimity on the issue, the majority of courts that have considered the issue have concluded that there is a private cause of action under § 1681s-2(b) as there is no statutory ban on such a claim"); contra Carney, 57 F.Supp.2d at 502 (the magistrate judge held that "an individual . . . cannot state a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)). While not deciding the issue, the Court will assume for purposes of this motion that a private right of action does exist."

  - ROBINSON V. AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION•5No. 03-2220 B/A. (W.D. Tenn. Mar 30, 2005) 

[Anonymous]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

“The Plaintiff has alleged that Honda violated § 623(a)(1)(A) of the statute, which states in pertinent part that "[a] person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate."15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(A). There is, however, no private right of action under subsection (a). See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(c)(1) ("sections [15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o] do not apply to any violation of . . . subsection (a) of this section"); see also Beattie v. Nations Credit Fin. Servs. Corp., No. 02-1744, 2003 WL 21480586, at *5 (4th Cir. May 27, 2003); Gibbs v. SLM Corp., 336 F.Supp.2d 1, 11 (D. Mass. 2004); Zotta v. NationsCredit Fin. Servs. Corp., 297 F.Supp.2d 1196, 1204 n. 6 (E.D. Mo. 2003);Stafford v. Cross Country Bank, 262 F.Supp.2d 776, 782-83 (W.D.Ky. 2003); Carney v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 57 F.Supp.2d 496, 502 (W.D. Tenn. 1999). Subsection (d) limits enforcement of the provisions of § 1681s-2(a) exclusively to "Federal agencies and officials and . . . State officials . . ."15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(d); Gibbs, 336 F.Supp.2d at 11; Zotta,297 F.Supp.2d at 1204 n. 6. As the Plaintiff cannot maintain an action under § 1681s-2(a), the Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to that claim is GRANTED.

"Unlike subsection (a), some courts have assumed § 1681s-2(b) is amenable to consumer lawsuits. See Downs v. Clayton Homes, Inc., Nos. 03-5259, 03-6055, 2004 WL 253363, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2004) (court assumed for purposes of motion that a private right of action existed under subsection (b)); Young v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., Inc., 294 F.3d 631, 629 (5th Cir. 2002) (without deciding the issue, the court noted that § 1681s-2(b) "it appears" to impose civil liability permitting a private right of action); Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2002) (based on language of the statute and legislative history, court concluded private right of action *44 exists under subsection (b)); Gibbs, 336 F.Supp.2d at 11 ("While there is not unanimity on the issue, the majority of courts that have considered the issue have concluded that there is a private cause of action under § 1681s-2(b) as there is no statutory ban on such a claim"); contra Carney, 57 F.Supp.2d at 502 (the magistrate judge held that "an individual . . . cannot state a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)). While not deciding the issue, the Court will assume for purposes of this motion that a private right of action does exist."

  - ROBINSON V. AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION•5No. 03-2220 B/A. (W.D. Tenn. Mar 30, 2005) 

---

Thank you very much. Very informative. I may have some reading to do over the next couple of days.