Question regarding seding correspondance to the CRAs

[morgacj2004]

I recently read an article in which the author stated the following reccomendation when contacting the CRAs to dispute errors on ones CR.

"The best advice that I can give you is to hand write  a letter that is  personal, and not like every other downloaded template that these bureaus see each and every day. They receive thousands of these each day, so if you think that the template will slip by without a thought, you’re probably wrong.  The CRAs use the following program to respond to the correspondance that they receive each day: eOSCAR: The credit bureaus use an automated dispute processing system called eOSCAR. This system scans each letter — utilizing OCR (Optical Character Recognition) scanning technology."

Can anyone verify that this is true. I have always typed correspondance sent to the CRAs and always sign the letters. But I dont handwrite the letters. ??

[MRsolis]

I couldn't confirm if the CRA's use that but I can say that a lot of large companies use systems like that. The company I work for does and when they get a handwritten letter that the system cannot read then it has to be placed in a manual file to be entered later on so it actually ends up taking longer to proccess those. The only reason I could think that they give this advice is so they have to be manually entered but then I would think that would jus cause delays.

[morgacj2004]

I think the premise is that it will force a live person at the CRA to actually read the letter and respond accordingly rather than just ignoring any attached documentaion and sending out a standardized reply (form letter).

[RobertEG]

There may have been truth to that advice a year or more ago, but things have changed a bit due to CFPB directives.

For decades, the CRAs have reduced the contents of a dispute to a three-digit dipute code, and entered that code into their Uniform Data Form, and sent that form to the furnisher electronically.  That is theri e-Oscar electronic dispute processing system.  While the statute explicitly requires the CRA to forward all "relevant" informamtion provided by the consumer to the furnisher, the CRAs have for decades taken the position that they can determine what is or is not relevant, and gradually they came to a practice where virtually no supporting documentation was being forwarded to the furnisher. 

Thus, making the CRA at least read a dispute can be argued to increase the liklihood that their clerk will include sometng more than just scanned informstion.

However, a bit less than a year ago, the CFPB notiifed the CRAs that they expected the CRA to forward all information provided by the consumer,, and supposedly the CFPB has been working with the CRAs to change their cursory e-Oscar system, and include all supporting docmentation provided by the consumer.

Time has yet to reveal whether those efforts are indeed bearing fruit, but it would appear that a deeper review of all disputes is now being conducted.

As an aside, filing a direct dispute as opposed to disputint thru a CRA avoids any such issues, and automatically ensures that the furnisher receives all consumer documentation and arguments.  That is the primary reason why the direct dispute process was implemented back in 2010.

[morgacj2004]

Would you still recc handwriting letters in cases where one needs to dispute directly with the CRA? Or in your opinion is that no longer necc. ?

[gdale6]

---

@morgacj2004 wrote:

Would you still recc handwriting letters in cases where one needs to dispute directly with the CRA? Or in your opinion is that no longer necc. ?

---

I would not be handwriting a dispute to the CRAs anymore where this works best now is with Goodwill Letters and in some cases a PFD offer.

[RobertEG]

I would not expect any difference in processing.

As for items that require dispute through a CRA, those are limited only to items thar are exempted under the direct dispute rules at 16 CFR 660.4 from the direct dispute process.

They include disputes related to consumer personal identifier information, public record information, and credit inquuiries.

Each of those items does not involve a classic "furnisher" of information to t CRA to which there is a party that can be required to investigate the accurcy of their reporting.