12-02-2012 06:08 PM
Exactly, the CA is admitting that they cannot validate if the information they are giving you is not sufficient for them to research it.
They report info about you on your credit report.
You dispute said information and give them the exact information that they reported for their reference to so they can validate.
They tell you the information is not enough and they need more to be able to start the process or they can't validate.
They have just admitted that what they have is not enough to validate the account by their own words.
12-16-2012 01:05 PM
Stay on it. They did this to me twice when I sent a DV letter. Ignore the letter. After 30 days, send a second demand just to cover your tracks. At the same time I did this, I filed a complaint with the BBB of San Diego. This got their attorney involved. He uses a lot of legal speak stating they aren't required to provide you with information since it's been over 30 days since they acquired the account. I threatened to sue in federal court through the BBB response. I also reminded them that they had just lost a HUGE suit for the same reasons and I cited the case. After that I received a letter stating they were ceasing all collection activities until they could validate and that they were suspending credit reporting. That seemed to be their legal way to back out without admitting they were breaking the law. Oh well, I got my way. I forwarded that letter to all the CRAs and it was off my reports within a week.
12-16-2012 01:27 PM - edited 12-16-2012 01:37 PM
I disagree that stating the information provided is insufficient to investigate is the same as saying they cannot verify
The direct dispute rules, for example, make explicit provision for a furnisher to dismiss a dispute based on the lack of sufficient information to investigate an asserted inaccuracy. A dispute that simply states..."I dispute the accuracy, verify it is accurate" is dismissible without investigation on their part as being "frivolous or irrelevant."
However, in the case of a dispute through the CRA, the furnisher is not the ultimate decision maker, and thus the CRA is the ultimate decision maker.
FCRA 623(a)(8) states that the duty to investigate a dispute forwarde to them by a CRA does not apply if the consumer failed to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information.
When disputing through a CRA, they have a statutory requirement to respond back to the CRA, not the consumer. If they choose to inform the CRA that the information provided is insufficient for them to conduct a reasonable investigation, it then becomes the obligation of the CRA to either agree and dismiss the dispute, or to conclude in their reinvestigation that the information was sufficient, and thus they have falied to verify.
The problem with their handling was that it was apparently a CRA dispute, and thus their assertion of inablity to investigate should be provided to the CRA, not the consumer.
12-16-2012 03:19 PM
Can you provide a link or the name of the case that you referenced...Im about to go to bat with midland and want as much ammunition as I can get...
12-17-2012 11:33 AM - edited 12-17-2012 11:34 AM
You need to dispute (send validation request) directly with MCM, rather than using the online dispute. I think you are a little mixed up about dispute vs validation.
12-17-2012 12:13 PM