Will proof that CA is verifying different dates across cra's get a deletion?

[ndkblondie]

I have a trade line with Portfolio that is appearing on my credit reports.  I have disputed the inaccuracies but they keep verifying and now say they won't respond to further requests.

Question, if I go through CFPB and show proof that they are verifying different dates for DOFD and Date of Purchase, will that get me a deletion?  For example DOFD TU 4/2008, EXP 11/2008, EQ 6/2008, all different dates but all verified when disputed.  Date of Purchase TU 6/1/2012, EXP 6/30/2012, EQ 6/1/2012, all verified when disputed.  

Does this show that they are verifying without investigating and is it enough to prove they are full of it?

[guiness56]

It could, especially with the DoFD.  They should all have the same DoFD.

[ndkblondie]

How about if I did a complaint with cfpb against the credit bureaus showing that same proof? I checked cfpb and since I already complained about portfolio this would be considered a duplicate. Bummer I didn't understand the process better or I would have included that info in the first place.

[guiness56]

The CRAs, TU and EX, come up with an estimated removal date based on information sent by the creditors.  The OC is required to provide the DoFD within 90 days of reporting a CO or collections.  EQ shows the exact DoFD given by the OC.

They are also supposed to give that information to the CAs.  If they don't the CAs are supposed to make an effort to get the correct DoFD but if they can't they can essentially make one up but it has to be earlier than the date they acquired the debt.

Have you ever sent Portfolio a direct dispute about the DoFD?  Or at all?

If it is for a different reason now can they say it would be a duplicate?

[ndkblondie]

I didn't send a direct dispute because they validated with bank statements.  Even though they have the bank statements they are still reporting the wrong dofd and different dates on the diff bureaus.  That's what I mean about them not checking at all, they get the request and just hit the verified button without looking at anything.

I could try saying it is for a different reason but the CFPB is fickle and they don't seem to look very closely.  That's why I was hoping the complaining about the cra's investigation would be an option.  If I can prove that they are giving the cra bogus info, is that enough for the cra to delete it?

Here is why I am concerned about a duplicate... I have two account with LVNV also, I filed complaints for them both, with different account numbers through CFPB and they kicked one back as a duplicate even though it was for a completely different account and had different reasons for my complaint.  My advice to anyone disputing with CFPB is do everything for that same company at the same time and/or if you are complaining against one of the cra's, put everything under that report number/dispute number in one complaint or they will kick it back as a duplicate.  It's happened to me twice already, once in each scenario and it kills at least 15 days or more before they decide it's a duplicate and pull the investigation.

[guiness56]

A direct dispute is not the same thing as a DV. 

The direct dispute has to do with they way they are reporting information.  Look in my signature for direct dispute.

[RobertEG]

Since the DOFD always occurs under the OC, they are the source for obtaining the DOFD.  However, a debt collector is always required to report the DOFD, regardless of whether the OC has ever reported it.  The OC would only have been required to report the DOFD if they had reported a charge-off.

FCRA 623(a)(5) clearly sets forth the steps that a debt collector must follow:

1.  if the OC reporting of DOFD is of record in the consumer's file, that stands as the OC's statement of DOFD, and the debt collector must report that same date.

2.  if the OC has not reported the DOFD, the debt colletor must contact the OC using reasonable procedures, and attempt to obtain the DOFD from them.  If the OC privides them a DOFD, they must report that date.

3.  If steps one and two have failed, then the debt collector can make their best estimate, but since a DOFD must precede the date of a reported collection, they cannot report a DOFD that is later than the date of their collection referral.

There should be no discrepancy between the DOFDs reported to different CRAs.  Assuming there had been a temporary confusion, their last reporting would clearly be their current determinatin,and if found to be different from what was previsously reported, they were required under FCRA 623(a)(2) to have promtply updated all other reportings so as to clearly reflect the currrent accuracy.  Ther is no legal excuse for any discrepancy in reporting of their knowledge of the same fact.

It would be a real stretch to hold the CRAs responsible, in their reinvestigation, to contact the other CRAs and fish for any differences in reporting with them.They have reasonable basis fo assume the debt collector's reporting and verification thereof was done in compliance with their responsibilities under section 623(a)(5).

They dont hire private investigators to review each reported item or each dispute.

How the CFPB will or wont handle such a discrepancy is up to them.  Resolution of any dispute always provides the furnisher the option of correctling any reported inaccuracy.  Delteion is only requried if they fail either to verify or correct with the CRA.  I would suspect that a CFPB complaint would, if found to be a factual misreporting, result in an order to correct, not delete.  If the CFPB were to find that their misreporting was intentionally inaccurate, they could choose to issue sanctions or bring legal action, but that would require more than just a showing of inaccuracy/inconsistent reporting.