Direct Dispute Response from OC

[sennico]

I sent a direct dispute to the OC a week or so back on some old lates (2007) reporting to the 3 CRAs. I used RobertEG's template for the request. I received a rather plain response that I'll include below that provides no value or documentation. Is there anything else I can do? Dear sennico, We have received your request to update credit information on your credit bureau report. Our records indicate that the information appearing on your report is correct. If you wish to add a brief statement of explanation to your file, you may contact the consumer reportinging agencies to whom we report your account information. We appreciate the opportunity to explain our position. Sincerely, OC manager

[RobertEG]

Unfortunately, while the OC must conduct a reasonable investigation, which reasonably requires that it based on documentation, they are not compelled to provide their supporting documentation with their finding.  Their finding is either yes, they have verified, or that they have corrected or deleted the information based on their investigation.

Neither of the FCRA dispute processes are legal proceedings.  They are administrarive proceedings that require verification of results, not of how they reached those results.  To compel documentation, you would have to bring civil action and use the discovery process of the court.

If the verification was not based on a reasonable investigation on their part, they suffer the risk of intentional noncompliance with their investigation requirements.  Only a judge can hear the facts and make such a ruling.

[sennico]

Thanks for the detailed response... sucks that creditors dont have the burden of providing proof unless you take legal action. Such is life.

[Stiltzy]

I have seen where a few folks have had success after such a vague response have sent MOV letters requesting copies of documentation. You may proceed that route. 

[RobertEG]

The MOV process, detailed in FCRA 611(a)(6)(B)(iii) and 611(a)(7), pertains only to requesting the administrative procedures used by a credit reporting agency in their reinvestigation of a consumer dispute made through them.  It does not apply to the direct dispute process, and thus does not permit a consumer to require disclosure of the creditor/debt collector's handling of a direct dispute.

[sennico]

Robert, 

One more quick question. I got a resonse from another OC that I disputed via this method. I disputed late payment history from back in 2007 as well as 2009. I may be in the same boat as the other dispute but wanted to get your take.

They responded today with the following:

We are in receipt of your correspondence requesting validation of your debt. SST remains committed to maintaining a high level of satisfaction and appreciates the opportunity to assist you.

Please find the enclosed documents proving the validity of this debt. This letter serves as confirmation that the balance on your account is valid and your obligation to pay under the credit agreement.

Should you have additional questions or concerns please contact our customer service Department.

Sincerely

SST

The funny thing is that they included the last 3 statements on the account only (May, June, July 2010). All these statement show timely payment for at least the minimum due every month and finally for the entire remaining balance in July. Do I have any recourse either with SST directly or with the CRAs based on the data they provided back? Also there was no mention of reporting to the CRAs that this account was disputed. Are they not obligated to do that as well? 

[RobertEG]

Hmmm....

Their response is, in my opinion, not a notice of results of the disputed information, and thus not in compliance with 16 CFR 660.4(e), which requires them to either (1) provide a finding that the disputed information is verified as acccurate, (2) modify the information such as to make it accurate, or (3) delete the disputed information.

I see no statement whatsoever pertaining to any individual delinquency.  It sounds more like a debt validation response from a debt collector than a verification of the accuracy of the specific information disputed.

How was your dispute worded?  Did you specifically dispute the accuracy of delinquencies, as opposed to legitimacy of the debt?

As for their responsibility to report the dispute itself to the CRAs, the direct dispute rules, fortunately, dont require that.  They are only required to contact the CRAs if the dispute results mandate correction or deletion of the disputed information.  You certainly dont want a dispute flag in your credit file.  Some credtiors have begun to do this, but in my opinion, the consumer is better off by not having to fight the CRAs for later deletion of a dispute flag.

If they failed to address the substance of your dispute, which appears, without seeing your actual dispute,to be the case, I would file a response stating that they have failed to provide verification of the information you disputed, and hold that you dispute is still pending, and thus that they are in violation of the 30 day period for providing notice of the results of their investigation.

[sennico]

Robert, 

Yes I feel that i did dispute the delinquencies. I specifically said:

I am disputing the late payment history of this account. The account was reported with late  payments Nov 2007 thru February 2008 and then again Jan 2009 through Dec 2009. I belive this reporting to be inaccurate as the account was not late during these periods.

Thanks for the clarification on the dispute notation. In a way im glad they didnt becasue i know I have to get it removed before applying for a mortgage. Just didnt know if it was required of them. 

[RobertEG]

To be honest, your documentation of the dispute of the delinquecies was a bit sparse.  It really did not provide them information other than an assertion.

However, if they had determined that your dispute lacked sufficient documentation of the alleged inaccuracy for them to conduct a reasonable investigation, the rules require that they must send you formal notice of dismissal of your dispute as "frivolous or irrelevent" within their investigation period.  They did not do that, so they did not avail themselves of the opportunity to hold the dispute as lacking documentation.

Thus, they would still be in violation of the notice of results of the dispute, regardless of any issue of adequatecy of your dispute.

They simply have an unanswered dispute, and are in violation of the statute.