Help with dispute - CRA listing lates AFTER I filed BK

[MsPeach]

Ok, I'm new to this so bear with me..

Dispute 2 late TLs with TU and EX - these 2 TLs were listing late payments after I filed BK. 1 TL is listed as CO on TUs payment timeline, although it does list IIB in the header. I know this is wrong and that my disputes are legit.. I asked for the TLs to be removed, citing FCRA and that these lates are false..

So I receive a letter from one of the credit companies saying things such as 'we received info from the CRAs' 'the disupte didn't explain things clearly,' 'if you wish to dispute this item, please write us at ______ address.'  I'm summing up the quotes, they are not verbatim..

I also saw a hard pull on my report from this company about 2 weeks after I sent the letters to the CRAs..

I have checked my credit monitering program (I see all 3 reports), and the TLs are still there. Granted 45 days have not passed and I have not received any letters from TU or EX yet. I did dispute via mail..

I know I have to wait until 45 days, but my question is: I dispute this info with the CRAs, right? I don't ask for a GW from the company - this is false reporting, the company must respond to the CRA, and then I can escalate it if they don't delete, right?

I've read a lot, but obviously there's a difference between straight learning and the application of the law/methods of credit repair...

Thanks in advance!

[guiness56]

The CRA does not list lates.

.

[MsPeach]

---

@guiness56 wrote:

Even though the account is listed IIB the creditor can continue to report lates until the BK is discharged.

---

This flies in the face of what I've read about bankruptcy law.. from my research, they cannot list lates after I file.. (e.g. if I file in March, they cannot list a late in May)

Feel free to cite resources for me to look at - if I have been told the wrong thing, I would be happy to learn new info..

Thank you!

[guiness56]

Sorry, I stand corrected.  Nothing can report late after the date of filing.  Lates before the filing can remain.

I would hesitate to file a dispute with the CRA.  Instead, I would file a direct dispute with the creditor under FCRA 623(a)(8)

I was thinking of another post when I wrote that.

[MsPeach]

Interesting.. Is there a reason why you would hesitate disputing directly with CRA? I thought it would be easier to get the TL deleted through CRA than creditor but I'm new to this so what do I know?

[guiness56]

Disputing with the CRA can cause a great headache,  If they use eOscare, their online database for verification, it can come back verified when you know it isn't true.  Then if you attempt to dispute again, it can be considered frivolous.  Disputing with the CRA will not neccessarily get the TL deleted.  It could be updated and stay.

When you do a direct dispute with the furnisher of the information, they are required by federal law to investigate.  They then must make corrections in reporting.  They also have to respond to you within 30 days.

[MsPeach]

Got it.. makes sense

Love the penguin

Thank you!

[RobertEG]

If I understand your dispute scenario correctly, there appears to be a probem with their handling.

As I understand, you filed a dispute through a CRA, and the furnisher of the disputed information responded directly to you that more info was needed?  What did you send to the CRA?

The obligation on the furnisher, if they feel that insufficient info has been provided, is to inform the CRA as such.  The decision maker in the dispute is ultimately the CRA, and the furnisher has a statutory obligation ot respond back to the CRA for their determination, not request more info from the consumer.  That is only permitted if it was a direct dispute filed with them, and if that had been the case, they must have terminated the direct dispute by holding it to be "frivolous or irrelevant" for lack of sufficient information to conduct a reasonable investigation.  I dont see that from the post.

You should have received a formal decision on your dispute from the CRA within the 30'ish day period provided under the statute, not from the furnisher.

If the dispute was held to have been insufficient, the CRA was required to have advised you of such, as that is their determination.

[MsPeach]

Yes, I filed through the CRA. In retrospect apparently it would have been better if I complained to the creditors first, but because the TLs were 6 years ago, I figured it'd be a no-brainer to dispute through CRA. Besides, it's supposed to be my right to dispute with the CRAs

In no way did the CRA claim my dispute was frivolous..And they never asked me to provide extra info..

Ok, so I'm not crazy for thinking there's something out of the ordinary..

So the end result has been, to make matters even more confusing, that all EQ ended up doing was supressing the history from my report. The TL is still there, and they admitted NO errors on their end..

It just makes me wonder - did they do that to sneak their way out of admitting an error and thereby having to delete the TL? What gives? I don't understand how they can do that.

Any thoughts anyone? I am totally confused by this and I haven't found this situation posted anywhere on these boards yet..

Is this something I can file a formal complaint about? I'm trying to read through the FCRA to see if there is any section that would cover this dubious treatment of my dispute..