Wow! Bad/incorrect info on reports once I dug, can I sue on any of this?

[Anonymous]

• Experian lists my CO’d/closed Cap1 as an *open* account AND has my DOLA 14 months after my last payment AND lists me as 90 days late as of 1/05 so I have a 3 year old late payment

• TU has the same account as closed as of 6/02, not CO’d as of 1/05. Someone is very wrong.

• Midland is listed as a two year old collection even though a 6 /12 year or older account

• Experian lists Midland as an OPEN account even though HSBC (the OC) lists it as closed/CO’d as of 6/02. Their DOLA and DOLP are also not in agreement with HSBC, the CO, whose dates are wrong too (I think it was DOFD in 2000)

• Bally’s lists my 36month contract from 03 as open even though it is closed/CO'd

• Worst of all Asset Acceptance, which I paid in full in September for Sprint, lists the account as open, has no Date Closed, AND has me listed as 90 days late in December, 30 days after I paid in full. I have a judgement for the same account(I won't even get into not being notified on this and being surprised when I called in the full payment and they said ok we'll list the judgement as satisfied)

Can a Credit Attorney sue for this incorrect information? Much of it is hurting me, not least of which is a recent 90 day late on a closed account, and an old CO'd account being listed as open with a fairly recent 90 day.

[MidnightVoice]

Have you disputed them yet?

[RobertEG]

The FCRA makes it unlawful for any creditor to willingly report any information to a CRA that it believes to be incorrect.  That is a hard burden of proof, and depends upon what the reporting creditor did or not know in good faith, and whether their reporting was willful. Many creditors clearly report bad information, but will assure you that it was not done willingly and knowingly with any intent to report incorrectly.  But what if they later learn otherwise??? Hmmmmm  Dirrerent scenario.

Then what really becomes interesting is the legal question of whether, once a creditor actually becomes aware that prior information reported was, in fact, incorrect, does their failure to promptly update that information with the CRA  become a willful intent to report incorrect information?  I think it clearly does.  I would argue that since they now know it is incorrect and actually in the files of the CRA, doing actual damage to you, that it requries immediate action on their part.  ,The only way to fulfill their legal obligation to wilfully report correctly at that point is to immediately update info, in order to mitigate the actual damage that is of record. If they dont, then negligence is their only defense.  I am sure that any attorney in the field would be more than willing to write a legal brief on those facts, and to set precedent for us all!!! 

Message Edited by RobertEG on 02-09-2008 10:46 AM

Message Edited by RobertEG on 02-09-2008 10:55 AM

Message Edited by RobertEG on 02-09-2008 11:01 AM

[Anonymous]

I did dispute, twice.

On Efx/TU many fell off, on Experian no.

The Cap1 verified to all, no CRA would reinvestigate. They sent me a reply that is was Closed, not sold, a biz card, and listed on personals because of the lateness (even though closed/written off). However their info is incorrect AND inconsistent from one CRA to the other (as stated the most egregious offense being from Experian who lists it as an open account and has DOLA 14 months after DOLP). They sent me a letter saying I should provide THEM with docuemntation.

Midland verified on TU/Exp and neither would reinvestigate. Midland send me a letter on round two also asking for ME to provide documentation to 'clear up the dispute', also sent me several settlement options. Scared? In any event, listed as OPEN on Exp when the CO lists as closed as does TU.

Asset Acceptance verified first round, Experian would not reinvestigate without info. This one bothers me the most because it is PAID, but I have a 90+ day late with them 3 months after the fact, and a PAID judgement indicating same.

All the others left verified round 1, and either TU/Exp won't reinvestigate or OCs/CAs verified (pending any new documentation I provide).

I was going to let the Midland fall of, but it shows as a 2 year old collection (i.e. recent) not a 7 year one. Cap1 which is 7 years and closed shows a 3 year old 90+ too and my summary in Experian specifically cites that.

I want these off!

[Anonymous]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

The FCRA makes it unlawful for any creditor to willingly report any information to a CRA that it believes to be incorrect. That is a hard burden of proof, and depends upon what the reporting creditor did or not know in good faith, and whether their reporting was willful. Many creditors clearly report bad information, but will assure you that it was not done willingly and knowingly with any intent to report incorrectly. But what if they later learn otherwise??? Hmmmmm Dirrerent scenario.

Then what really becomes interesting is the legal question of whether, once a creditor actually becomes aware that prior information reported was, in fact, incorrect, does their failure to promptly update that information with the CRA become a willful intent to report incorrect information? I think it clearly does. I would argue that since they now know it is incorrect and actually in the files of the CRA, doing actual damage to you, that it requries immediate action on their part. ,The only way to fulfill their legal obligation to wilfully report correctly at that point is to immediately update info, in order to mitigate the actual damage that is of record. If they dont, then negligence is their only defense. I am sure that any attorney in the field would be more than willing to write a legal brief on those facts, and to set precedent for us all!!!

Message Edited by RobertEG on 02-09-2008 10:46 AM

Message Edited by RobertEG on 02-09-2008 10:55 AM

Message Edited by RobertEG on 02-09-2008 11:01 AM

---

As I think about the fact that I *did* dispute and regardless the creditor posted the same erroneous information, I can't see how it matters whether willful or not. Of course, it depends on how the courts define willful, but I'd imagine if a consumer says through an official dispute process 'I dispute the validity of the info you report' and does it twice and you keep verifying it, that means that you are replying, legally, that the information has been validated. Now how can Experian report a Midland Account for HSBC as OPEN when Experian lists the very same HSBC account as CLOSED and TU Lists the SAME Midland HSBC account as closed.

Perhaps not willful, but certainly goes to neglect, or willful neglect at least.

I'm not happy to find out my last late payment listed for 2 years ago, considered recent, on an account closed several years ago, nor am I happy to find out I have a 90+day late as recently as December on a Collection Account I paid in full in September.

At the very least I plan on having a lawyer get those off, if he thinks I can sue, I will do just that and get them off AND a settlement.