How do some of these CA get away with "Validation"

[Anonymous]

I contested what I knew to be a re-aged account and had to take it all the way to the CFPB before the agency admitted that due to a date formatting error the account had been misreported.  Somehow Feb 10th became Oct 2nd, conveniently enough for them allowing them to go on reporting a time-barred debt for another 8 months or so.  They even sent me print outs with the dates 10-2 instead of 2-10.  

If I had conveniently done just the opposite.. turned Oct 2 to Feb 10th and sent out blatantly false records, I'd be scared to end up with fraud charges. But this bureaus routinely get away with this crap until the very last second when they have to confess. There's no real downside to them continuing to play these games -- I wasted the six months this stuff should have been off my report trying to get it off my report while it sat there anyway.  

I'm just going to turn my dating format to whatever is most convenient before I print anything out from now on.  

[RobertEG]

It appears that your issue pertains to their verification of accuracy of disputed credit reporting under FCRA 611 of the DOFD, and not to a debt validation issue under the FDCPA.  More specifically, it appears that you contested the reported DOFD, and they verified its accuracy, but later, upon review, corrected the inaccuracy.

Yes, the FCRA is structured so that a furnisher can misreport information without being subject to private civil action by a consumer based on the inaccurate reporting per se.  FCRA 623(c) requires a consumer to first file a dispute with the CRA, which asserts the inaccuracy and compels the CRA to forward to the furnisher for their investigation and response.  It is only the reasonableness of their investigation of your dispute that subjects them to private civil action your part, and not the reporting of inaccurate information per se.

While that process may appear illogical or unreasonable, it is based on specific desire by congress not to provide a disincentive to reporting to CRAs based on fear of protracted civil action by consumers.  The intent is to promote voluntary credit reporting.

Thus, the furnisher must first be advised on an asserted inaccuracy by way of a dispute, providing them the opportunity to correct before the consumer can bring civil action seeking damages.  Fair or not, it is the clear process required under section 623(c).

Once the furnisher has conducted the required reasonable investigation of a dispute and verified its accuracy with the CRA, the consumer can then bring their own civil action for a lack of reasonable investigation of the dispute.

[Anonymous]

Your responses are always the most well thought out and helpful answers I have ever received on any forum anywhere on the internet.  Without fail.. you're like a machine.    Thank you.  And yes you are right, I meant verification of accuracy not validation, I get those two mixed up too often.

I understand that they want to encourage voluntary reporting by the CRA, but perhaps the pendulum has swung a little too far in one direction?  Every time I dispute something with the bureaus or with an agency, honestly, they make me feel like a criminal or that I'm trying to get away with something.  For example, there was one agency that I had never heard of or from before ever and they magically appeared on all three bureaus with four or five accounts on each.  Turns out it was a "software glitch" on their end and I wasn't even meant to be reported at all (not the first time I"ve heard that excuse) but now I can't file disputes online with anyone because they think I'll just dispute anything and everything to see what sticks.  I mean, they went through the hassle of falsifying statements but wouldn't just admit they couldn't report it and move on?  I disputed with the bureau, came back valid and then went to the agency, as instructed to get details.  When I got those details I discovered even more errors and the agency still refused to remove the reporting so I had to go and file a CFPB complaint and then and only then did they admit their mistake.

It's just frustrating to try to do the right thing and pay what you legitimately owe and follow the rules when there are so many people out there that are playing for the opposing team and not doing the same.  /rant