No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
I really, really, really hate these people.
Not sure what I should do now.
I've still been fighting with them about this Aspire Visa account that should be deleted per the FTC. I sent them a letter stating such, highlighting the parts of the FTC Stipulation order that they were in violation of.
It's been removed from EX and TU so far but still lingering on EQ.
I get a letter today in response to the letter I wrote them about it.
"Please be advised that we have determined that our credit reporting of the above-referenced account is accurate or we have updated it to make it accurate. Please note it will take 30-45 days, blah blah blah. Further, we will continue to request that the three major credit bureaus list the status of this account as disputed."
Attached to this letter is a UNIVERSAL DATA FORM. All the account information is on it. What in god's name is this anyway???
The date of the UDF is May 9th, and I've checked EX and EQ just a few minutes ago and while the account is still gone from EX at least - and still remaining (abeit with the dispute comment removed) - there is one really strange oddity:
I posted the initial letter I wrote them about the Aspire Visa account. I don't reference ANYTHING about the FCRA in it...how the heck can they call this a dispute, and then put dispute flags on the other account?
Sorry if I sound like I'm rambling. Would love some suggestions on how to proceed. Thanks.
Do you have a link handy for the FTC ruling? I've seen others post the same about the reporting, but haven't read it. I have read the FDIC ruling concerning JeffCap, et al, including Aspire. That's 2-3 years old, but didn't cite anything about deletions.
Sure.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0623212/081219compucreditstiporder.pdf
That's the link to the stipulation order.
Page 8:
"This paragraph shall apply even if an Eligible Consumer's account was closed, charged off or sold to a third
party (whether or not the third party is affiliated with CompuCredit)."
On page 11
"F. Credit Reporting
Within sixty (60) days of posting the credits required by this Order, for all
closed accounts included in Part II that have charged off and have a zero balance or
a net credit balance as a result of the credits issued pursuant to this Order,
Defendant CompuCredit shall request that each consumer reporting agency to
which it has reported information remove the affected trade line or trade lines . For
all other accounts that receive a credit under this Order, Defendant CompuCredit
shall request that each consumer reporting agency to which it has reported
information remove the affected trade line or trade lines, or shall furnish such
agency accurate information regarding the modifications. to each account resulting
from this Order."
I read this thing pretty carefully...I'm pretty sure MCM is supposed to do the right thing...am hoping I'm not getting out of line here...haha.
Thanks.
05-15-2012 02:14 PM
Sure.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0623212/081219compucreditstiporder.pdf
That's the link to the stipulation order.
Page 8:
"This paragraph shall apply even if an Eligible Consumer's account was closed, charged off or sold to a third
party (whether or not the third party is affiliated with CompuCredit)."
On page 11
"F. Credit Reporting
Within sixty (60) days of posting the credits required by this Order, for all
closed accounts included in Part II that have charged off and have a zero balance or
a net credit balance as a result of the credits issued pursuant to this Order,
Defendant CompuCredit shall request that each consumer reporting agency to
which it has reported information remove the affected trade line or trade lines . For
all other accounts that receive a credit under this Order, Defendant CompuCredit
shall request that each consumer reporting agency to which it has reported
information remove the affected trade line or trade lines, or shall furnish such
agency accurate information regarding the modifications. to each account resulting
from this Order."
I read this thing pretty carefully...I'm pretty sure MCM is supposed to do the right thing...am hoping I'm not getting out of line here...haha.
Hi Injustifiable, what ever happened with this? If you dont mind me asking. Did they remove it based on the FTC ruling?
My reading...
You filed a direct dispute with them over the accuracy of their reporting, using as basis for that dispute an FTC ruling.
They reponded by verifying the accuracy, notwithstanding the provided documentation.
You thus have a concluded dispute. Regardless of whether their verification of accuracy was correct, if they previously chose to report the filing of your direct dispute with the CRA, they are now compelled to notify the CRA that it is concluded. Legal basis for such requirement is FCRA 623(a)(2)(B), which requires any furnisher to update any prior reporting in a manner required to reflect its current accuracy. Their statement that they will continue to report a concluded dispute as still pending is an overt violation of section 623(a)(2)(B). Civil action would most certainly be an option.
As for their verification notwithstanding the FTC order, that is also an issue for the courts, not for continued FCRA dispute. Their verification concluded the dispute.
As part of their verification, FCRA 623(a)(8) required that they conduct a reasonable investigation of your dispute, and that any verification must honestly reflect the results of that investigation. If their investigation simply ignored your issue, it was not reasonable. Remedy is legal action for violation of the reasonable investigation provision of the statue. The FCRA dispute process is not one compelling proof of verification.
My recommendation is to bring action in small claims court on two grounds. Violation of FCRA 623(a)(2)(B) and 623(a)(8).