PRA Dispute - Requested that I verify the UDF is Correct

[Anonymous]

I disputed a PIF collection with a CA (PRA) due to inaccuracies and requested deletion.  Many things were odd on all three CRs including the DoFD which was inaccurate by more than two years on one, date of last payment on all three, statused as "Open - 120+ Late" on one, and even threw in the "factoring company" stuff allthough I understand that to be a very muddy area.  I received a meesage today stating they have submitted a UDF electronically to "update" the tradeline and requested I verify the info on the UDF is correct.  They also included a hard-copy of the UDF along with hard-copies of the OC invoices (background documentation) ... in effect basically throwing the ball in my court, yeah?  So, I imagine they're sitting there all "Here then you putz ... the info is correct now.  NOW whatchya gunna do!"  LOL

Actually, it made me giggle when I read it.  I've read tons of horror stories about this group so I'm thinking I'll simply let it cool off for a few months before beginning the next round of pleasant GWs.  I'm now in a gardening phase and am not planning on any major purchases, etc for at least another two years.  All of my baddies will fall off in 2017 so I suppose I have a while to work them.  Perhaps I'll give it 30-60 days, check the reports again, and if it is still inaccurate then ... ?  Your thoughts on this?

[EDIT] PS - On a call I made to them last November the woman said something to the effect "yeah, you're probably one of *those* people on the FICO boards.  Yeah.  It's NOT coming off."  LOL  So ... I know they watch us.  Kinda makes me feel good

[DaBears]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I disputed a PIF collection with a CA (PRA) due to inaccuracies and requested deletion.  Many things were odd on all three CRs including the DoFD which was inaccurate by more than two years on one, date of last payment on all three, statused as "Open - 120+ Late" on one, and even threw in the "factoring company" stuff allthough I understand that to be a very muddy area.  I received a meesage today stating they have submitted a UDF electronically to "update" the tradeline and requested I verify the info on the UDF is correct.  They also included a hard-copy of the UDF along with hard-copies of the OC invoices (background documentation) ... in effect basically throwing the ball in my court, yeah?  So, I imagine they're sitting there all "Here then you putz ... the info is correct now.  NOW whatchya gunna do!"  LOL

Actually, it made me giggle when I read it.  I've read tons of horror stories about this group so I'm thinking I'll simply let it cool off for a few months before beginning the next round of pleasant GWs.  I'm now in a gardening phase and am not planning on any major purchases, etc for at least another two years.  All of my baddies will fall off in 2017 so I suppose I have a while to work them.  Perhaps I'll give it 30-60 days, check the reports again, and if it is still inaccurate then ... ?  Your thoughts on this?

[EDIT] PS - On a call I made to them last November the woman said something to the effect "yeah, you're probably one of *those* people on the FICO boards.  Yeah.  It's NOT coming off."  LOL  So ... I know they watch us.  Kinda makes me feel good

---

Unfortunately there is not illegal for a CA to report as a factoring company. I had dealt with PRA a few months ago and decided to get a consumer attorney invovled he saw they not only had violations of FCRA but also FDCPA. 

[Anonymous]

Yes, I learned that last year though it seems as if some are able to use that as leverage.  My guess is there were other "more pressing" reporting issues at hand.  Still, I threw it in along with the kitchen sink.  Anyone have a good PRA contact sensitive to GWs?  For now, I'll close this file for a few months, concentrate on others, then return with GWs out the yinyang

[guiness56]

I would not have verified anything.  It is their job to report correctly and if they don't know how, they need to delete it.

[Anonymous]

That's my thought. I have not responded and do not intend in doing so. After all it's not my job to do *their* job. I'll wait patiently to see if anything corrects. If after these "updates" it is still incorrect I'm hitting up the FTC and AG.

[RobertEG]

Resolution of any dispute requires completion of the reinvestigation if dispute was made via the CRA, or completion of the furnisher's investigation, if a direct dispute, within 30 days of filing of the dispute, and conveying a formal notice of results of either the reinvestigation/investigation to the consumer within 5 business days thereafter.

Forwarding you a copy of their intended universal data form for review is not a part of the process.  You dont have to "pre-agree" with accuracy of their intended reporting.

However, it is a good clue as to their intented resolution of the dispute, as it shows whether they intend to actually correct any informatin, or to simply verify the accuracy as reported. 

While much of what you apparently disputed is info that can be corrected if inaccurate without any need for deletion of the collection, they must nontheless either correct, verify, or delete as resolutiion of the dispute. 

Wait for 30 days from date of the dispute, plus 5 days to mail the Notiice,  plus reasonable mailing time.  If no Notice is received, then you can file a formal complaint for violation of the dispute resolution provisions of the type of dispute you filed.

[Crossdivided]

---

@guiness56 wrote:

I would not have verified anything.  It is their job to report correctly and if they don't know how, they need to delete it.

---

+1

The burden of proof falls upon the reporter (OC/CA), not the consumer. Make em earn their damm paycheck.

Only exception to this is PRs. The CRAs have their own way of verifying (farm that out to info companies im guessing), but theyre pretty tight-lipped on their exact standard operating procedures.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Robert! ... and everyone else too