DV Time Limit? Update for Midland!!!

[dblue1]

Update: I received a response from Midland today concerning the letter. Apparently they conducted an investigation of my dispute of the credit reporting of the account pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It reads:

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT OUR CREDIT REPORTING OF THE ABOVE-REFERENCED ACCOUNT IS ACCURATE OR WE HAVE UPDATED IT WITH THE THREE MAJOR CREDIT BUREAUS TO MAKE IT ACCURATE. PLEASE ALLOW 30-45 DAYS FOR THE CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES TO UPDATE YOUR ACCOUNT. FURTHER, WE WILL CONTINUE TO REQUEST THAT THE THREE MAJOR CREDIT BUREAUS LIST THE STATUS OF THIS ACCOUNT AS "DISPUTED".

This doesn't sound like they are deleting it but I'm still hoping.  The account was deleted from EQ after disputing it with them so if Midland is now saying the info is accurate EQ has to now notify me if they reinsert it back on my report, correct?

~~~~

I have a CA from MCM that was deleted from EQ as a result of a dispute but still remains on TU. I sent a letter to MCM asking to have TU delete because EQ deleted after investigating my dispute. I haven't heard back from them and it's been a little over three weeks. I disputed an item on my EX report and as a result was able to see an updated copy of my report a few days ago. I notice MCM did a soft pull on 12/4 and only on EX as I have the fico monitors for TU & EQ.

I called MCM to inquire about the reason behind the soft pull. The rep said it was probably due to them having another potential debt of mine which I assured her that I know can not be. I asked her if it could be a result of the letter I sent. She said there wasn't a letter received from me. She recommended I call EX to inquire about the inquiry.

Anyhow when discussing the paid debt behind my letter she informed me that I had 30 days or maybe she said 45 to dispute after I recieved the original collection notice. Anytime after those amount of days I would have to send them proof of the debt not being mine, accurate, etc. She basically said that since that limit had passed years ago, I settled in 2008, they wouldn't be able to verify. So I asked if it can't be verified does not it have to be deleted? I forgot her answer but I know it wasn't yes.

Is her assertion correct? Is it that they don't verify to consumers but will verify to the CRAs? During dispute with CRAs, TU verified as accurate yet EQ deleted it after investigation. Why send verification to one CRA and not the other?

I'm going to fax my letter this time although I think someone did receive it.

[RobertEG]

If you dispute through one CRA, and if the furnisher of the disputed information finds the information is incomplete or inaccurate, it is not sufficient for them to report the results of their investigation only to the CRA through which you disputed.  They are required under FCRA 623(b)(1)(D) to "report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information."  If the action they took on the disputed information was not reported to TU, they would be in violation of section 623(b)(1)(D).

As for the "30-day period" that their rep was apparently referencing, it is kinda unclear from your post what you intended to or did "dispute."

There are two different flavors of the term "dispute."  There are disputes over the accuracy of information in your credit report, which are covered under the FCRA, and "disputes" as to the owing of a debt, which are covered under the FDCPA.  There are similary two types of "verification," one being as to the accuracy of reported information, again covered by the FCRA, and verification of a debt, which is covered under the FDCPA.

I presume that you are referrng to a dispute over the accuracy of a debt, which is a debt validation issue under FDCPA 809(a) and (b). 

The "30-day" window under section 809(b) is the period a consumer has within which to "dispute" an alleged debt, or any portion thereof and trigger the "cease collection" bar against the debt collector.  It mentions nothing about sending the debt collector proof of anything after that period has run, and thus being able to require debt verification.  Nothing in the FDCPA ever requires a debt collector to provide verification at any time, or ever prohibits the consumer from requesting debt verification at any time.

What I think she was trying to say is that since the 30-day period after their dunning notice has expired, they have no obligation to cease any collection activites relating to the debt should you now send them a DV request.  They can ignore it.

I dont quite understand what you would be attempting by a DV at this point.  They could simply state that "we verify that the debt has been paid, and is $0."

That would be full compliance with FDCPA 809(b).  And since their collection has now been closed, they would not be conducting any further activities to collect a now non-existent debt, so I dont see the issue of a cease collection bar to now even be relevant.. I am confused as to what you are trying to accomplish......

[dblue1]

The letter that I sent, that the rep said wasn't received, was a request to delete from TU under FCRA 623 (b)(1)(D).  I was attempting to explain to the rep why I wanted it deleted when we got on the subject of verification. I wasn't attempting to have the debt validated because I know it was mine and I paid the collection in 2008. Maybe she interpreted it that way. She said that I would have to prove the inaccuracy if I wanted it deleted , because the 30 days had passed. I told her it was in the letter.

Obviously they verify the information with the CRAs post 30days  so I was wondering if what she said only applied to individual consumers because it didn't make sense to me. I don't understand how, if after 30 days, I believe a reporting has inaccuracies that the burden of proof is on me versus them to verify if what they are reporting is accurate.

The call was prompted by the soft pull on EX this month which I assumed was because they had received my letter. Now I do have an collection account with them currently that is debited monthly. To date they have never done a soft pull in reference to that account so that's why I assumed it was about the letter I sent that they apparently never received.

[dblue1]

bump

[RobertEG]

THe burden is not on the consumer to verify.  The initial burden is on the consumer to at least provide sufficient identification of the alleged error such that the furnisher of the information can determine what specfically to investigate.  Then they are requried to conduct a reasonable investigation and report the results either to you directly, if it is a direct dispute, or back to the CRA if you disputed through a CRA.

Verification does not mean proof.  It means that they are accurately stating that they have conducted a reasonable investigation, and have concluded in good faith that the information is accurate.  If you want access to documentary proof of the basis for their verification, you can compel that by bringing legal action, but you cant compel such "proof" under the administrative FCRA dispute process.  It is a process of reliance on their truthfulness, for better or worse.

[dblue1]

Thanks for the information. I received a response today from the letter I sent citing FCRA 623(b)(1)(D). It doesn't look like a delete simply them updating the info to make it accurate. I'm hoping that means a delete, I guess I'll find out in 30-45 days or less.

[RobertEG]

REmember that favorable resolution of a dispute does not compel deletion of the information.  If they have corrected the information such that it is now accurate, they have complied with the FCRA.