Equifax dispute fail ... seeking advice

[Anonymous]

A creditor recently reported an old charge-off to Equifax for the first time, together with a fabricated and demonstrably false Date of First Delinquency.

(In fact, this had been a joint account, and Equifax's records contain a different DOFD for the record in the joint account holder's file. Likewise, an accurate DOFD had been reported originally to the other bureaus.)

I disputed the DOFD with Equifax through their website and submitted plenty of documentation, but the creditor (Astoria, a regional bank) "verified" the information and no changes were made to the DOFD. The statement of dispute results actually stated that the "Date of Last Activity" had been verified by the creditor.

I called up Equifax but didn't get too far ... the rep didn't know the difference between Date of First Delinquency and Date of Last Activity, either. When I explained it to her she submitted the dispute again. I could try for a supervisor at Equifax next time I call in; I was a bit disheartened this time and didn't bother trying.

So ... is there a better pathway than the online system for submitting disputes to Equifax? And what can be done when the creditor simply re-confirms the false information?

Where can I take this from here?

[Aduke1122]

Send them a direct dispute and what info you have and reason for dispute . They will have to send you verification of DOFD , I'm positive if they can't supply that or it doesn't match you would have a string case for removal

[RobertEG]

The dispute processes (i.e., either a dispute filed with a CRA, or directly with the furnisher) provide that a second or subsequent dispute filed on substantially the same basis may be dismissed without investigation as "frivolous or irrelevant."  However, a second or subsequent dispute is not "substantially the same" if it includes information not previously submitted.

The direct dispute rules, set forth at 16 CFR 660.4, explicitly state that a direct dispute filed after resolution of a dispute filed via a CRA can be dismissed without investigation as "frivolous or irrelevant."  Stated differently, you choose whether to file with the CRA or directly with the furnisher.  A direct dispute that is substantially the same as a prior dispute filed with a CRA can be dismisssed without any requirement to investigate unless it is substantially different.

Thus, the primary question is whether or not you have basis for filing a subsequent dispute that is not substantially the same as your prior dispute.

You are relying on a phone rep to determine the basis for your online dispute.

I would not do that.

I would file a formal, written dispute that clearly states the basis for your dispute is an inaccurate reporting under FCRA 623(a)(5) of the "FCRA Compliance Date/Date of First Delinquency," which is the formal title used by the CRA Metro 2 reporting manual.  If the prior dispute was not determined based on investigation of the DOFD, then it would not be substantially the same......

Regardless of whether you file a renewed dispute, you now have a verified dispute.

If you still contest the issue, you now have the ability to bring your own civil action, and get the matter resolved by the court, as opposed to the administrative dispute process.

The FCRA prohibits a consumer from bringing their own private, civil action based on knowingly reporting inaccurate information, or failing to correct knowingly inaccurate reporting.  See FCRA 623(c).

Rather, the consumer must first file a dispute, thus providing the furnisher the ability to correct their reporting.

The furnisher is required, under the FCRA dispute process, to conduct a "reasonable investigation" of your dispute, and respond back to the CRA.

FCRA 623(c) then permits the consumer to bring civil action on the basis of a lack of reasonable investigation on the part of the furnisher.

Thus, you now have the ability to bring civil action and get a resolution by the court of their verification of accuracy of their reporting as not being based on a reasonable investigation of the asserted inaccuracy.

[Anonymous]

Thank you, Robert, for your information-filled post.

Is there an online resource (or stickied myFICO thread) where I could get educated on this topic before I make more missteps?

[Anonymous]

I would not do that.
I would file a formal, written dispute that clearly states the basis for your dispute is an inaccurate reporting under FCRA 623(a)(5) 
of the "FCRA Compliance Date/Date of First Delinquency," which is the formal title used by the CRA Metro 2 reporting manual.  If 
the prior dispute was not determined based on investigation of the DOFD, then it would not be substantially the same......

Is your recommendation to file this written dispute with the creditor, or the CRA?

Or is there no difference?

[RobertEG]

I would, if you expect verification of the accuracy as filed, and thus need to pursue further, file the dispute with the CRA rather than filing a direct dispute.

In order to thereafter bring a private civil action, FCRA 623(c) mandates that you must have a decision on a dispute filed with a CRA.

Upon implemention of the direct dispute process, a direct dispute was not also included as basis for thereafter bringing private civil action, so my advise would be to use the CRA dispute process to preserve the right to any later civil action.