Changes in the FCRA Sec. 623 went into effect, as of 7/1/2010. Just wondering if anyone has a link that has information on the changes.
Im wanting to get a better understanding of what, if any, kind of information the OC must provide when you request they conduct 623 investigation. Are they able to simply respond with the results of their investigation, or are they required to respond with actual documentation supporting the result of their investiagtion.
If you are disputing lates, what should the consumer expect to receive from an OC?
Not Sure were allowed to post links, So I will post the info that I found. If this link is not allowed, please Edit......
Mod Cut! We are not allowed to post links or web site addresses to credit repair sites. Its a violation of myfico's terms of service.
Thank you for your understanding!
--fused, myfico moderator
623 Dispute Method
When the conventional method of disputing an inaccuracy on your credit report fails to yield results, the 623 dispute method may be a viable alternative to getting erroneous or unconfirmed information removed from your report. The 623 dispute method allows you to dispute any inaccurate information on your credit report directly with the original creditor. A 623 dispute does not work in the same way as a traditional dispute through the credit bureaus because you are not asking for verification of the debt, but for an investigation as to the accuracy of the records on that debt. If you creditor does not have accurate records pertaining to that debt, then they must remove the negative information on your credit report. The process usually follows these steps:
1. File a dispute with the credit bureau.
2. Await the results of the investigation. If the negative information is not removed, then proceed.
3. File a 623 Dispute notice with the original creditor, asking for an investigation into the debt or delinquency.
4. If the original creditor does not have proof of the debt or delinquency, the negative information must be removed from your credit report.
5. If the original creditor does not comply, you will have to file suit in order to have it removed.
How It Works
In order to successfully challenge negative listings on your credit report through the 623 dispute method, you must first dispute the information through the credit bureau. When you dispute the information to the credit bureau, you must wait for the 30 days for the investigation to be complete. If the original creditor verifies that the negative listing is accurate, then you move forward with the next step which is to dispute directly with the original creditor itself.
Under the laws governing the 623 dispute method, creditors must conduct an investigation when requested. In addition, when investigating, they must review the information that you provide relating to that dispute, and they must respond within 30 days to your original investigation request. The new laws governing fair credit reporting explicitly require the original creditors to investigate when requested, and will take effect on July 1, 2010.
This method will only work to remove entries on your credit report that are inaccurate, or entries in which the creditor no longer has to verifiable information. While you might think that the credit card agencies will have up-to-the-minute information about your past debts, this is often not the case. In fact most credit card companies will only keep your records for 13 to 18 months. Any late fees, charge-offs, or other information prior to this time they will not be able to verify through their records. The 623 dispute method works because anything that is inaccurate, or not in the records will have to be corrected on your credit report. What this means is, if the credit card company does not have any records on your account at all they must contact the credit bureaus to have the negative information removed.
If you have disputed the information through the credit bureau before initiating the 623 dispute process, and the creditor refuses to remove erroneous information, you will have grounds to sue. Otherwise, your only legal recourse will be to have the state or federal authorities pursue the case, and it is solely at their discretion to do so.
Warning: This dispute method probably will not work for a debt that is fairly recent. It is also unlikely to work for those companies who do keep detailed records spanning several years. In addition, you will need to be somewhat specific about the information you wish to be investigated and any records that you have that can prove that there is an error will be helpful. At the very minimum, you must identify the account by the actual account number and provide a reason to the original creditor explaining why you are disputing the accuracy of their records. If you do not provide this information as a part of your investigation request, the original creditor may determine that your request is frivolous and deny the investigation. Overall, the 623 dispute method works best for past delinquencies and charge-offs that may no longer be listed appropriately in the records.
Thanks for the reply. Before I posted here, I did some searching and the link you posted was one of the sites I reviewed. It has some VERY helpful information. Unfortunately, it didnt answer my question of "what must OCs provide as proof of their inestigation. As I'm typing this, it just came to me that maybe I should research websites that the OCs turn to, when they want to know how to stay in compliance with the FCRA.....
Again, thanks for your reply!
I respectfully , and strongly disagree. That is NOT how the direct dispute process works.
The final direct dispute process does NOT follow the procedure outlined in the previous post.
What was posted was pre-7/1/2009 arguments. It does not reflect the final rules as published at FR 74/125.
That is a very old version of proposals by the credit industry, most of which was dismissed in the final rule-making.
There is NO requirement under the implementing rules for the direct dispute process implementing FCRA 623(a)(8) for ANY prior dispute through a CRA.
That was asked for by the creditor communiity, and was clearly dismissed in the implementing rules as published at:
Fed Reg/Vol. 74, No. 125, published July 1, 2009, with implementation date of July 1, 2010
Requring prior dispute through a CRA would have been a total sham. The main reason for implementation of direct dispute was to eliminate the arcane dispute processess used by the CRAs which relies primarily on the sanitization of all disputes by their reduction to a three-digit dispute code under their e-Oscar dispute system.
The final rules rejected any prior need to first dispute through a CRA,
Here is a brief summary of the basic provisions of the final direct dispute rules:
1. Items normally reported to the CRAs may be disputed directly, with the
following express exceptions:
a. consumer’s identifying information cannot be disputed;
b. the identity of current or past employers cannot be disputed;
c. inquiries or requests for consumer credit report cannot be disputed;
d. information derived from public records cannot be disputed;
e. information pertaining to fraud alerts or active duty status, cannot
f. information provided to a CRA by another party cannot be disputed
2. Direct dispute address
Direct disputes may be addressed to the address provided in the consumer
credit file, or, if the consumer is specifically notified of an alternate
address for receiving direct disputes, at that address
3. Notice of direct dispute filed by the consumer
a. sufficient information to identify the account or other relationship
that is in dispute, such as consumer name and account number;
While the rules specificy that an address and/or telephone number are
not required, their inclusion is recommened to assure proper identification
b. identification of the specific information that is being disputed and
a basis for the dispute.
c. all supporting documentation or other information reasonably
required to substantiate the basis for the dispute.
This is the contentious area.
What is “reasonbably required?”
Under the final rules, the consumer must at least provide a copy of
the “relevant portions” of a consumer credit report, but not a copy of their
entire credit report. The relevant portions of the credit report establish
substantiation of the basis for the dispute. Other supporting documentation
should also be provided.
4. Duty of furnisher after receiving a direct dispute notice
The furnisher must:
5. Frivolous or irrelevant disputes
A dispute may be held as frivolous or irrelevant if:
a. the notice of dispute did not contain sufficient information necessary to
investigate the dispute; or
b. the submission of a dispute is substantially the same as a dispute
previously filed, either directly with the furnisher, or previously
filed with a CRA under the dispute process set forth in FCRA 611(a).
About that last bit, Robert EG, the part about the dispute being substantially similar to that prior filed with the furnisher or the CRAs, what happens if you disputed with the CRAs (out of ignorance), and now want to send a 623 to the OC? Can you NOT send a 623 if you disputed with the CRAs? I disputed, and it came back verified, and was about to write an MOV letter when I found this info about 623 letters.
And, what if you don't have any supporting evidence?
In my case, the CO is out of SOL, and I'm sure it's with a junk debt CA, but i haven't heard anything about it in years. It went into CO because way back I had reported ID theft on the account, but the OC continued to hold me liable. The CO is due to fall off late this year, but I'm trying for a mortgage, so want to see what the OC has to support the negative tradeline. Also, the balance listed is not the final balance on the CO account (just from memory, and the fact that I was not over my limit, and the limit was low).
Is there any risk that if I send a 623 letter, the OC will update the tradeline's activity and sink my FICOs? I know they can't change the DOFD, but I know crazier things have happened.
Any advice appreciated. And, can you point me to the form 623 letter?