Dispute/MOV Response

[jtetazoo]

I recently disputed some items on my credit report with Equifax (plan to do so with the other two CRAs) and they came back "verified."  I sent them a letter (CMRRR) asking for MoV and the response I got from them came back exactly the same as before...simply verified.  No details provided about the method of verification whatsoever.  Just says to contact the CA if I have any additional questions.  Is this normal/typical or do they usually provide the actual info used to verify?  Is failure to provide this info within the deadline enough (by itself) to get it removed permanently or can they just sit back and wait for you to sue and then provide the info later? (which would mean the deadline is meaningless)

[DaBears]

They have to tell you their Method of Verification. I would file a complaint with the FTC and CFPB. 

Community Leader, 

DaBears

[guiness56]

They are supposed to tell you how they verified the account information.  Along with the name and address of the furnisher contacted and their telephone number if they have it.

It is your right under the FCRA.

IMO, what you wrote does not qualify as an answer to your question,

I am not an attorney but it would seem to me that waiting until they get sued to provide it would not bode well with the judge.

[jtetazoo]

Are there any requirements to contact the OC in a MOV?  Or could the CRA just say that they contacted the CA and that was their MOV?  The collections don't specify the OC because they are medical in nature, so I can't do any verification on my own at this point.

[guiness56]

Have you sent the CA a DV and specifically asked for the name and address of the OC.

[jtetazoo]

I filed dispute and then requested MOV with CRA asking for this information.  Will the CRA contact the CA and then provide this info to me or can I only work with the CA directly to get this?

[RobertEG]

In their Notice of Results of Reinvestigation, they were required to have provided notice that the consumer can request "a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completemess of the infomation."  FCRA 611(a)(6)(B)(iii).  The courts have held that, at a minimum, that requires them to provide the name and contact address of all those who were contacted in their reinvestigation.

If the disputed information was furnished by another, which will almost always be the case eecept for public record information, FCRA 611(a)(2)(A) REQUIRES the CRA to forward a copy of the dispute to that furnisher within 5 buniness days of receiving the dispute.  Thus, a response to a request for their description of procedures would necessarily include at least identificatio of that furnisher. 

With no names provided, it would appear to be a clear viollation of section 611(a)(7), which requres them to "provide a description referred to in paragraph (6)(B)(iii) by not later than 15 days after receiving a request from the consumer for that description."

Such request apply only to a CRA, not to any other party involved in the dispute process.

I would send a formal complaint of violation of section 611(a)(7) to the FTC, with a cc: of that complaint sent to the CRA.  That should get their attention.

[jtetazoo]

The CRA's response to request for MOV was:

"The results are: We verified that this item belongs to you.  If you have additional questions about this item please contact:..." and they included the name, address, and phone number of the CA.

This information was already on the CR, so this provided absolutely no new information, but since they provided me the contact info for the CA (who is technically the party furnishing the info), does that mean that they fulfilled the minimum requirement for MOV and don't have to do anything further?  If so, is the CRA a dead end?  Do I need to send an MOV to the CA instead?  Or send them a DV or direct dispute letter (I thought I read there is a difference between the two, although not totally clear what it is)?

[RobertEG]

The statutory requirement is to inform the consumer of the procedures  they actually took in their reinvestigation.

Simply providing the name of the furnisher does not state that they contacted the furnisher, as requred by statute, and thus does not comply.

It is possible that they sent nothing to the furnisher, thus making their reinvestiagetion procedure in noncompliance.

Whether worth pursing is up to you. 

As an alternative or supplement, you could send a direct dispute to the furnisher (debt collector), to which they must respond within 30 days.

They could, if they were previously forwarded a copy of the dispute, conducted an investigation, and responded back to the CRA, dismiss a direct dispute as having been previously investigated.  However, if they were not forwarded a copy by the CRA, they have a statutory requirement to conduct an investigation and respond directly to you.

FCRA 623(a)(8) and 16 CFR 660.4.