How does a dispute work with the CRA?

[Booner72]

I'm hoping Robert EG and others with this experience can answer this for me.   I have some medical collections that are paid on my reports that are my husband's bills.  I was never the insurer nor did I sign a financial agreement saying I was responsible for those accounts.  I have tried to get them removed via the CA but they won't budge, they say that "statute" dictates that I am responsible for his debts.  However, the FCRA and other "acts" say that I am not responsible for my spouse's debt unless it's a joint account etc.  I filed a complaint against them with the BBB and they came back with the "statute" line.

TU deleted all of them when I wrote them a letter explaining this.  EQ says they came back verified.  So I spoke to a "valerie" today at EQ.  She says that when they investigate, they send the info to the reporting party, and if the CA "verifes the information" that is all EQ needs, and that it stays.

On the document I got from EQ it says I can request how the info was reported to them (etc) and I'm thinking this is when I send in the $11.00 that you talk about.   (However the letter from EQ says nothing about sending in 11.00).  Valerie says that what she is going to send me  is a "general information on disputes".  Valerie says she cannot nor can EQ send me how the CA got the information that they are reporting.  Valerie says the only thing EQ can do is "redispute it"  using "Someone's name similar to mine."  This is not correct!  But this is what the rep at EQ advised me to do and because I have nothing to lose or no other ideas, i told her to go ahead and do it.

I asked Valerie if I could send in statements from the OC that list my husband as the patient on those dates of service for that particular amount that was sent to collections to prove it wasn't mine.  Valerie says that nothing I send in will matter, because EQ will only go by what the CA reports to them, and if the CA says it's right, then it's right, done deal.

I asked her why TU deleted them so easily then, and she says "That's why most people use Equifax."

So my questions are:  Is this really how the CRA's work?  Does anybody have any advice or information i can use to get his deleted since it really and truly IS NOT MINE?

[Booner72]

Bump.

[Scope27]

Depends if you live in a common law state, which would then allow for them to collect from you being the spouse.

[Booner72]

I am NOT in a commonlaw state.  I also have a copy of the statements from the CA.  It says "Individual account" and has my husband's name.  Then all the dates of service list him as the patient.  My name is nowhere.

I redisputed again to EQ and EX and have sent them a copy of this statement.  Even the EQ rep today told me it sounded like a bunch of b.s. to him.  Wish he coulda just hit the delete button.

[RobertEG]

They are just flat out wrong.

Collectibility of the debt is a legal issue to be decided by a judge.  Your status as a responsible party on the account is a fact.

When a party reports to a CRA that you are responsible for an account, they must provide what is called an ECOA code.  There are three ECOA codes that report the legal obligation of the consumer.  One is sole account holder, one is joint account holder, and one is a responsible co-signor.  You appear to be none ot those.

If they have legitimate purpose to report the account to your CR, they must also have provided an inaccurate ECOA code to the CRA.

I would send a direct dispute to any party who reported on the account, be they an OC or a debt collector, disputing the accuracy of your status, and requesting the reported ECOA code as evidence of their reporting.

If you want to obtain how they reported the account in advance of a dispute, and thus include the specifics in your dispute, you can first write to the CRA and request all information reported by the OC as to your account status, with particular emphasis on the reported ECOA code.

Rquests to the CRA for any and all information in your CR are sanctioned by FCRA 609(a)(1),  If you send such a request, it must be responded to by the CRA if you include the required proof of identity (copy of a state-issued ID) and the required processing fee of $11.00.  Armed with that, any dispute could be accompanied by specific documentation in support of an assertion of a specific inaccurate reporting.  If they did not report your status under an ECOA code that indicates account repsponsibility, they are totally contradictory in asserting you do have accountability.

[Booner72]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

They are just flat out wrong.

Collectibility of the debt is a legal issue to be decided by a judge.  Your status as a responsible party on the account is a fact.

When a party reports to a CRA that you are responsible for an account, they must provide what is called an ECOA code.  There are three ECOA codes that report the legal obligation of the consumer.  One is sole account holder, one is joint account holder, and one is a responsible co-signor.  You appear to be none ot those.

If they have legitimate purpose to report the account to your CR, they must also have provided an inaccurate ECOA code to the CRA.

I would send a direct dispute to any party who reported on the account, be they an OC or a debt collector, disputing the accuracy of your status, and requesting the reported ECOA code as evidence of their reporting.They just ignore me.  The only time I got a response was when I filed the BBB and they responded to the BBB that i'm liable because of statute, not contract.

If you want to obtain how they reported the account in advance of a dispute, and thus include the specifics in your dispute, you can first write to the CRA and request all information reported by the OC as to your account status, with particular emphasis on the reported ECOA code.

Rquests to the CRA for any and all information in your CR are sanctioned by FCRA 609(a)(1),  If you send such a request, it must be responded to by the CRA if you include the required proof of identity (copy of a state-issued ID) and the required processing fee of $11.00.  Armed with that, any dispute could be accompanied by specific documentation in support of an assertion of a specific inaccurate reporting.  If they did not report your status under an ECOA code that indicates account repsponsibility, they are totally contradictory in asserting you do have accountability.

---

Thank Gawd you showed up to this post, RobertEG.  They are reporting me as a "cosigner" on some reports and "coborrower" on others.   I didn't sign ANYTHING for his stinkin dr. bills.  I never even went with him.  gggrrrrrrrrr  What good is it going to do me to DV them when they just IGNORE?

What I did Thursday was sent a copy of the itemized bills, including where it says "individual account" with DH's name to the EQ and EX with the letter telling them that Professional Credit is violating the FCRA and all the A's I could think of.  Again, my name is nowhere to be seen.

If that fails, I am going to try your version.  I am also going to try Whychat's letter - However, contacting Professional Credit gets me NOWHERE.  They are ignoring my letters now.  Since I already filed BBB, who else can I complain about to them? 

Do you think if I filed a motion to vacate the judgment (that is a result of these medical collections) that the Judge might vacate it based on this and based on the fact I was never served or even told of a court date?  I stupidly signed (via notary) their form so they wouldn't garnish my wages.

I don't even NEED my credit scores up right now, but I'm so furious at their actions I'm not letting this go.

[Booner72]

PS;  For anyone else who might be reading this, when I disputed the judgment on DH's reports so that it would update as "satisfied", it came back deleted.

Of course it came back as "satisfied" on my TU and EQ. 

So ironic.  In a really really really cussword way.

[RobertEG]

If you motion a court to dismiss based on inadequate service, that is a legal issue which, if shown, would provide the judge grounds to vacate the judgment based on improper procedure in the prior proceedings.   It makes the prior trial moot, and would force the plaintiff to re-litigate if they wish to pursue.

All courts will rule on such a motion, if you present it.  Before you make such a motion, trot over to the courthouse, visit the clerk of the court, and review the record of the legal proceedings.  A showing of proof of adequate service to the defendant is required in pre-trial papers, so they asserted to the court how they adequately served you.  YOu need to review that for accuracy before filing a motion to dismiss based on inadequate service of notice of the proceedings.

Asking to dismiss a judgment based on payment of the debt is not a legal issue of proper prior proceedings.  It is discretionary matter that some jurisdictions will grant and others wont.  While at the courhouse, ask the clerk about the court's policy on motions to vacate based on payment to the prevailing plaintiff.  He or she should give you some feel for how your jurisdiction normally treats such motions.

[Booner72]

Thanks again.  I'm not trying to vacate bc it's paid.  I'm trying to vacate bc they never served me.  However, I believe that it might be a "stipulated judgment" which means I signed and agreed it was my debt - So I might just be outta luck on that.

I'll come back to this post when results of the EX and EQ disputes come in.

[bruiseviolet]

Also check on how you can be legally served in your state.  In Michigan being 'legally served' is counted if the court sends you a letter in the mail.  It doesn't have to be physically served by someone to your home etc....