Need advice CO's not reporting IIB

[Countingpennies]

I've tried here, there, everywhere to find some answers, if I find a thread with a similar question it ends without any result or answer, so I'm hoping someone here can help.

I have several HSBC accts., that were included in BK (Nov.2012 discharge). EQ and EX are reporting them correctly - Charge off/paid/sold/included in BK. TU did not update the COs to IIB, I disputed and they came back as "Paid - was a chargeoff" and the notes say "Sold to xxx", no mention of IIB. On the "results" from TU there is also a notation "FCRA compliant."

I have read that this is an ongoing problem with HSBC, for me, it's only HSBC and TU (EX and EQ are fine.) At the moment, my TU scores (fico and fako) are running 60-100 points lower than the other two.

1. Is it worth it to keep disputing this? What are the effects on my credit report to leave it this way versus getting them to correct to IIB?

2. If my next step is a letter to HSBC, what legal basis do I use to defend my position?

Thank you for any advice.

[llecs]

Were the COs prior to the BK?

[Countingpennies]

Yes, charged off 2009-2010, all sold to various JDB's, various name incarnations, etc. To the best of my knowledge, the report is accurate, except for the missing 'discharged or included in BK.' 

(And thanks so much for answering.)

[starry1]

That's weird, I had no trouble at all in getting all of my accounts updated to IIB.  Did you maybe file a 13?

[Countingpennies]

No, it was a Chap. 7.

[starry1]

Huh, weird.  All I did was an online dispute or two and they fixed everything right up for me.  Except the judgment, they refused to update that to IIB until I got my discharge last week.

[Countingpennies]

I had 1 judgement. I kind of lucked out on that one. After I filed BK, the attorney for the judgement filed for dismissal, so I was able to get it off TU and EX with first dispute. EQ is making me jump through hoops, sent them a copy of the order on 2nd try.

My only other difficulty is Barclays. Duplicate account with two different numbers. Disputed and Verified. Evidently, 1 is acct. no., 1 is their file no. They actually told me on the phone that it doesn't effect me at all to have this reporting as two different accts. Letter ready to go tomorrow CMRR.

...But, I'm still trying to get my ducks in the right row on my HSBC/TU issue.

Anybody have an opinion?

[guiness56]

Send the OC a direct dispute under FCRA 623(a)(8).  They have to investigate and correct errors and notify you of the results within 30 days.

Sample format, mailed directly to the party who reported the disputed information:

 “This is a Notice of Direct Dispute with you, under the provisions of FCRA §623(a)(8)(D), of the accuracy of information you have reported to my credit file.

       ►       (If sent to a debt collector, (CA),it might be beneficial to also include the blurb:

       ►  “This is a direct dispute of credit reporting. This is not a request for debt validation/verification under FDCPA §809(b).”. (don’t let them just simply sluff it off as a meaningless  DV letter)

“In compliance with FCRA §623(a)(8)(D), and enacting regulations published at  16 CFR § 660.4, this Notice of Direct dispute includes:

 “Identification of the specific information being disputed:
 (specify the account number, and the specific information that is disputed under that identifying account)

“Basis for the dispute:

            (how the reporting was inaccurate; was any reporting in violation of any statutory or regulatory provisions?  account or express agreements?  CRA reporting gudelines? Account not
yours? etc.)

“Supporting documentation:

 all documents that support your dispute; it is recommened to also include, as part of your documentation, at least a copy of the portion only of your recent credit report showing their reporting of the disputed information was actually reported to your credit flle.  The implementing rule suggests a showing
that it appeared in your credit report)

[Countingpennies]

“Basis for the dispute:

            (how the reporting was inaccurate; was any reporting in violation of any statutory or regulatory provisions?  account or express agreements?  CRA reporting gudelines? Account not
yours? etc.)

---

Thank you so much, Guiness, so helpful, especially the citations. (Is that the proper term?)

The basis for the dispute is the main area of concern. I can't find specifically what this is in violation of, other than reading people say it should show as IIB, and is probably a violation of the BK. How do I state this and sound like I know what I'm talking about?

HSBC is the original creditor, sold to JDB's, in multiple CA hands, etc. All JDB's and CA's have dropped off, except for one. So I am writing to HSBC.

[guiness56]

It is inaccurate because any account included in a BK has to be reflected as such. I'm not sure off the top of my head what  the statutory or regulatory provison is.

The rest of it doesn't apply.