OC Claims I did not furnish enough information in Direct Dispute

[tomfromrictmame]

I received a response to my Direct Dispute and the OC claims I failed to meet the federal requirements and did not provide information or documentation to support my claim.  In fact, I provided a complete and detailed letter outlining all of the inaccuracies.  I also provided copies of the relevant pages of my Credit Reports and I highlighted the inaccuracies.  In other words, fully documentation.

What are my options?

[mo6579]

They should have told you what information is necessary to perform their investigation - did they ask for anything specifically?

[tomfromrictmame]

They said federal law requires that I supply:

1. Identify relationship such as name, address account number etc.  All supplied in original letter
2. Specify information OC is reporting to the credit bureaus and why I am disputing.  Original letter detailed 5 different inaccuracies
3. Provide adequate documentation to support dispute.   Original letter provided copies of the relevant pages from all 3 credit reports highlighting the inaccuracies

It's stalling on their part as I have been after them for months.  I had previously submitted a complaint through the BBB and their response was not acceptable to me.

[RobertEG]

Showing that your credit report includes the disputed information is recommended under the direct dispute rules, but simply showing that it is in your credit report does not ecessarily provide them a basis to investigate why it is consiered inaccurate.

What is or is not adequate supporting documentation is stated in 16 CFR 660.4(d)(3) as follows:

"All supportind documentation of other information reasonably required by the furnisher to substantiate the basis of the dispute.  This documentation may include, for example, a copy of the relevant portion of the cosumer report that contains the allgedl inaccurate information, a police report, a fraud of identity theft affidavit, a court order, or account statements."

If they determine the consumer has not provided sufficient informaton to substntiate a basis, they can dismiss the dispute as "frivolous or irrelevant" under the provisions of 16 CFR 660.4(f). 

If they determine the dispute to be frivolous or irrelevant, 16 CFR 660.4(f)(3) provides:

"Contents of notice of determination that a dispute is frovolous or irrelevant.  A notice of determination that a dispute is frivolous or irrelevant must include the reasons for such determination and identify any information required to investigate the disputed information, which notice may consist of an standardized form describing the general natuire of the information."

Thus, they are entitled to dismiss the dispute as frovolous or irrelevant provided they identify what is required for them to investigate.

 While they seem to fall a bit short on having done so, I would not consider simple idetification of what are asserted errors as providing them a basis to investigate why it is inaccurate.

It appears necessary to at least provide some documentation of how it should accurately report.

[mo6579]

I'd suggest sending a letter with a copy of your original dispute. Short and sweet, let them know that "Federal Law states, 'A notice of determination that a dispute is frivolous or irrelevant must include the reasons for such determination and identify any information required to investigate the disputed information.'" Include that you realize that them not identifying any information required to investigate the dispute was likely just a mistake, and you are providing them this opportunity to correct their error. They will either process the dispute, tell you what they need, or toss the letter in the trash.

I think your only other option is to sue them at this point. Is your dispute valid, meaning is their information really incorrect? Do you have any documentation supporting that?

[tomfromrictmame]

---

@mo6579 wrote:

I'd suggest sending a letter with a copy of your original dispute. Short and sweet, let them know that "Federal Law states, 'A notice of determination that a dispute is frivolous or irrelevant must include the reasons for such determination and identify any information required to investigate the disputed information.'" Include that you realize that them not identifying any information required to investigate the dispute was likely just a mistake, and you are providing them this opportunity to correct their error. They will either process the dispute, tell you what they need, or toss the letter in the trash.

I think your only other option is to sue them at this point. Is your dispute valid, meaning is their information really incorrect? Do you have any documentation supporting that?

---

This is what I plan on asserting in my letter:

As I stated in my earlier letter to you, I have received updated credit reports stating information provided by you the creditor xxxxx.  Further, I have found that you are in direct violation of FCRA §623 and must delete this trade line from these credit reporting agencies within 30 days of delivery confirmation of this letter for the following reasons:

1. You verified Date Opened as 01/28/2008 with Equifax, Date Opened as 01/07/2009 with Transunion and Date Opened as 01/2008 with Experian.

2. You verified OK Payment History in JUL 2009 and then 60 Days Past Due Payment History in AUG 2009 with Experian.

3. You verified Date of Last Payment as 01/2010 with Equifax, Date of Last Payment as 02/25/2013 with Transunion while also verifying a final payment made in Jan 2013 with Experian.

4. You verified OK Payment History in JUN 2008 with Experian while verifying Date of First Delinquency as 06/2008 with Equifax.

5. You verified Monthly Payment as $0 with Experian, Scheduled Payment Amount as $0 with Equifax, while verifying Terms as $260 per month with Transunion.

 
FCRA §623(a)(1)(B) states that you cannot furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if (i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and (ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.

[mo6579]

If they have already verified with the CRA, they are not required to perform another investigation. Since you provided no additional documentation or information that was not already provided during the CRA dispute, they are allowed to dismiss your dispute as frivolous.

(F) Frivolous or Irrelevant Dispute

(i)

In general.

This paragraph shall not apply if the person receiving a notice

of a dispute from a consumer reasonably determines that the dispute is

frivolous or irrelevant, including –

(I) by reason of the failure of a consumer to provide sufficient informa-

tion to investigate the disputed information; or

(II) the submission by a consumer of a dispute that is substantially the

same as a dispute previously submitted by or for the consumer, either

directly to the person or through a consumer reporting agency under

subsection (b), with respect to which the person has already performed

the person's duties under this paragraph or subsection (b), as

applicable.

[guiness56]

---

@tomfromrictmame wrote:

---

@mo6579 wrote:

I'd suggest sending a letter with a copy of your original dispute. Short and sweet, let them know that "Federal Law states, 'A notice of determination that a dispute is frivolous or irrelevant must include the reasons for such determination and identify any information required to investigate the disputed information.'" Include that you realize that them not identifying any information required to investigate the dispute was likely just a mistake, and you are providing them this opportunity to correct their error. They will either process the dispute, tell you what they need, or toss the letter in the trash.

I think your only other option is to sue them at this point. Is your dispute valid, meaning is their information really incorrect? Do you have any documentation supporting that?

---

This is what I plan on asserting in my letter:

As I stated in my earlier letter to you, I have received updated credit reports stating information provided by you the creditor xxxxx.  Further, I have found that you are in direct violation of FCRA §623 and must delete this trade line from these credit reporting agencies within 30 days of delivery confirmation of this letter for the following reasons:

1. You verified Date Opened as 01/28/2008 with Equifax, Date Opened as 01/07/2009 with Transunion and Date Opened as 01/2008 with Experian.

2. You verified OK Payment History in JUL 2009 and then 60 Days Past Due Payment History in AUG 2009 with Experian.

3. You verified Date of Last Payment as 01/2010 with Equifax, Date of Last Payment as 02/25/2013 with Transunion while also verifying a final payment made in Jan 2013 with Experian.

4. You verified OK Payment History in JUN 2008 with Experian while verifying Date of First Delinquency as 06/2008 with Equifax.

5. You verified Monthly Payment as $0 with Experian, Scheduled Payment Amount as $0 with Equifax, while verifying Terms as $260 per month with Transunion.

 
FCRA §623(a)(1)(B) states that you cannot furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if (i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and (ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.

---

The problem is, you are telling them what is incorrect but not what it should be.  And you need to be able to back up your claim.

Just simply stating this is wrong and not providing documentation of what it should be will result in it being frivilous.

If you never made payments, tell them that.  If your last payment should be on the same day, tell them that.  If you have proof via a check, send a copy.

You need to be able to fully provide documentation that they are incorrect.

[RobertEG]

Personally, I would not recommend haggling over the adequacy of their prior verification.

Deletion is only required if they failed to have corrected or verified.  They verified.

I would recommend addressing the issue directly by providing some documentation that was not previously provided, thus compelling an investigation and treatment of the dispute on its merits.