I have been away. Had to finish research project. Unfortunately it was a 24/7 endeavor.
When I last posted it had to do with taking Experian to court. Well, the good news is I didn't exactly lose. Apparently the judge coudln't understand the vagaries of the laws so believe it or not, there is no reason for his decision listed. I wrote to the presiding judge but that is always a crap shoot as judges don't go against other judges unless its really egregious.
I happened to come across one of Thankful Hearts that hit on something that I hope Robert might chime in on.
If a tax lien is on a credit report but the name and address is that of the county recorders office, wouldn't that indeed be inaccurate information being reported? False and misleading. . .? The debt is not owed to the recorders office. For this to be accurate information the name and address should be that of the lien holder.
Any thoughts from anyone?
The government only records the lien. The agency doesnt purport to be the party who is asserting the debt obligation that supports the lien.
The lien document records the claim, and it identifies the creditor.
Nothing false and misleading about recordation of liens.
Liens, like other public record information, dont necessarily require that the party at interest be the one who provided the information to the CRA.
The CRAs, for example, contract with private searchers of public records to supplement their files.
For that reason, the furnisher is often not the party at interest who can verify the accuracy of any dispute, and thus all disputes related to public record information are expressly exempted from the direct dispute process.
Im sorry if Im going to sound dense, but if the vendor is at the court with the information in front of them, why not just document that the lien is from the FTB or IRS and list the address.
My theory is that if they listed the FTB and the IRS then when someone disputed, because these agencies dont report to CRA's, the vendors would have to verify with the FTB and IRS and we all know how time consuming that is. Also I doubt the CRA's want to tangle with a government entity.
I just think if there are vagaries in the laws, then the benefit of the doubt should fall in the lap of the consumer not the CRA's.
Thank you for responding so quickly.