Repo advice

[Lemmus]

...my mistake  ...for an OC owned account I believe you would file a 623 Dispute notice with the OC, asking for an investigation into, and proof of, the amount still owed based upon his recovery from the repo ...if the OC does not have such proof, the negative information must be removed from your credit report ...hth

[RobertEG]

A disupte does not require that they document or prove their finding of accuracy, only that they investigate and make a finding as to accuracy.

There are not judges in either FCRA disute process to rule on the adequeacy of verification.

Financial accunting of debt reconcilliation after disposal of a repo vehicle is mandated under state statutes, not the FCRA.

There is no form of debt validation required of original creditors under either the FDCPA or FCRA.  Their billing statements represent their statemetn of debt.

[Lemmus]

"There is no form of debt validation required of original creditors under either the FDCPA or FCRA."

https://consumercreditwatch.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/facta-and-guidelines-for-an-effective-frca-623-...

...the op asked for options ...the only thing in his report from the OC that appears in question is the amount of the debt ...if he chooses, he can certainly ask for an investigation of that specific issue by the OC under FRCA 623 ...his best hope is that they no longer have the records or the resources to expend on investigating ...the cited article provides the "how" ...whether he chooses to pursue that option is up to him ...but debt "investigation" and response is certainly required of the OC by FRCA 623 if properly requested.

[RobertEG]

To male the processes clear, debt validation as defined under the FDCPA does not require documenatation of an asserted error, only a request for validation.

Yes, one can dispute an inaccuracy if it relates to information in one's credit file, but the consumer must provide adequate documentation of an actual error/inaccuracy in order to compel an investigation of an inaccuracy.

If one chooses to go the direct dispute route, one cannot simply ask for debt validation as a means to compel an investigation. 

The direct dispute must provide adequate documentation supporting an alleged inaccuracy.  That is a burdent that is not required when sending a DV request to a debt collector. 

Additionally, if one chooses to file a direct dispute, the information provided in the referenced artlice in the prior post is inaccurate.

The article states that one must first dispute via a CRA before filing  direct dispute.  That is incorrect.

If one first disputes via a CRA, it can be dismissed by the furnisher as frivolous or irrelevant without any need for their investigation.

If you choose to file a dispute, you must select one or the other, not both.  See the implementing regulations at 16 CFR 660.(f).

One issue is only required to be investigated once by a furnisher. 

[Lemmus]

...sigh ...OP, I referenced an article written by a recognized expert in the field ...there are many other items returned by a google search that provide the same advice ...its your choice on what is best for you to do ...some have the time and evident intent to turn this forum into a debating society without providing references for their opinions ...I have niether ...good luck in your credit repair efforts.