disputing twice question

[adio413]

if u dispute a debt via equifax, for example, and you hear nothing back or they verfy it......... cause you "redispute " via TU or experian?

[llecs]

TU and/or EX won't notify EQ so there's no impact.

[adio413]

thanks

[scarrollprint]

you can constantly keep disputing a debt (even in the same CRA) as long as your disputing for a different reason.

I had a debt collector trying to collect a $10 copay at a doctors (paid cash but they claimed I never paid - of course I dind't have a reciept) that they then added $200 ON TOP off when reporting on my credit report.

First dispute over validity was denied and came back as "confirmed" so I disputed over the balance and then it came back as "creditor deleted the line" they kinda figured $10 from 3 years ago isn't going to hurt my credit, I fought it and they weren't going to get a dime anyways so they just deleted it instead. I'm sure they figured I wasn't going to pay the $200 let alone the $10.

I did this on all 3 and had it removed on all 3

[Anonymous]

Personally, I've found that disputing through the credit bureaus gets you nowhere. I had a fraudulent account entered on my credit report a few months ago. I disputing with all three bureaus, and after a month, they all claimed they "verified" the debt and left it on my report! I got mad and sent a PV letter to the collection agency, didn't hear back for over three months, and just recently sent them a request to delete it off my credit report as they could not verify the debt and were fraudently reporting it. Just found out today they deleted it.

I'd love to know how all three bureaus "verified" the debt when it didn't even belong to me.

[RobertEG]

Any dispute may be dismissed without the need for any investigation/reinvestigation if it is considered "frivolous or irrelevant."

This is broadly stated in FCRA 611(a)(3) as regards disputes made through a CRA.  A repeated dispute that is substantially the same as a prior dispute is not specifically listed under section 611(a)(3) as basis for holding a repeated dispute as frivolous or irrelevant.  However, that section of the FCRA is old, and further developments suggest that a repeated dispute is a basis for dismissal as "frivolous or irrelevant."

In enacting the recent 2010 rules governing disputes made directly to the furnisher of the information as opposed to a dispute thru a CRA, a later dispute on "substantially the same basis" is specifically listed as basis for the furnisher to dismiss the direct dispute as "frivolous or irrelevant."  That includes a prior dispute made thru a CRA.

16 CFR 660.4(f)(ii). One issue, one shot at requring the furnisher to investigate.

Consistent with the rules regarding direct disputes, the CRA could also include a dispute that is substantially the same as a prior dispute under the umbrella of a "frivolous or irrelevant" dispute.

[adio413]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

Any dispute may be dismissed without the need for any investigation/reinvestigation if it is considered "frivolous or irrelevant."

This is broadly stated in FCRA 611(a)(3) as regards disputes made through a CRA.  A repeated dispute that is substantially the same as a prior dispute is not specifically listed under section 611(a)(3) as basis for holding a repeated dispute as frivolous or irrelevant.  However, that section of the FCRA is old, and further developments suggest that a repeated dispute is a basis for dismissal as "frivolous or irrelevant."

In enacting the recent 2010 rules governing disputes made directly to the furnisher of the information as opposed to a dispute thru a CRA, a later dispute on "substantially the same basis" is specifically listed as basis for the furnisher to dismiss the direct dispute as "frivolous or irrelevant."  That includes a prior dispute made thru a CRA.

16 CFR 660.4(f)(ii). One issue, one shot at requring the furnisher to investigate.

Consistent with the rules regarding direct disputes, the CRA could also include a dispute that is substantially the same as a prior dispute under the umbrella of a "frivolous or irrelevant" dispute.

---

uhhhhhh, what?

[RobertEG]

Simply stated, a second dispute based on substantially the same information can be dismissed without investigation/reinvestigation.