topic Equifax caught red handed in General Credit Topics

Equifax caught red handed

Stugotsv10 — Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:37:49 GMT

Family member has a "Gov Misc" Debt on her report she has NO clue what it is, disputed couple times, naturally they "Validate"

Debt has no open date, no payment amount, its in collections and shows late every month....

So we have been calling the so called "creditor" weekly to try to see whats going on and how it came about, they started an internal investigation, so far no results, so now comes the Gov shutdown and they are no longer there to communicate with, so we file a dispute with Equifax and guess what??? For a place thats shut down and not there, THEY RESPONDED AND VALIDATED!!!!

So I call the CFPB and had a long convo with someone, and she said that they have been suspecting Equifax of doing exactly this for a long time, just never even contacting the creditor and validating, so she decided to CONFIRM that this section of the Gov is 100% down right now and there is NO WAY they can have validated....

SO NOW WE KNOW THEY ARE NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES / LAW... now what?

Re: Equifax caught red handed

RobertEG — Tue, 15 Jan 2019 21:20:44 GMT

Since you have disputed and the CRA responded with verification of accuracy of the reported information, you now have the right under FCRA 623(c) to bring your own civil action contesting the reasonableness of the investigation by the furnisher of the dispute.

Government shutdown may be part of a showing of lack of any reasonable investigation by the furnisher.

You also have a separate issue of whether the CRA actually sent a copy of your dispute to the furnisher, as required under FCRA 611(a)(2)(A)..

You can send the CRA a so-called method of verification request, which requries them to disclose the procedure they used in referral of your dispute to the furnisher. See FCRA 611(a)6)(B)(iii) and 611(a)(7).

That may be helpful in any legal action against the CRA should you find they did not comply with their statutory obligation to send a copy to the furnisher as part of the dispute process.

You can thus choose to file your own civil action seeking review by the courts, which then provides recourse to the court's discovery process, and thus access to the evidence they used to verify the accuracy of the disputed information.

The CFPB also has the separate authority to initiate their own civil action on behalf of any consumer, and can do so directly for review of the accuracy of their reporting, as opposed to a consumer, who must first file a dispute and then must bring civil action with regard to the reasonableness of their investigation of the dispute.

However, the CFPB normally will not bring its own civil action unless it has multiple prior complaints or they determine that the issue affects a large segment of consumers. They rarely bring civil action based on a complaint from a single consumer.

Based on your communication with the CFPB where they stated that they have active investigation of similar complaints, you might call them back and ask if there is any possibillity that they will pursue the matter, or whether you should bring your own civil action.

Re: Equifax caught red handed

Stugotsv10 — Tue, 15 Jan 2019 21:42:32 GMT

I'd LOVE to see the method of verification!!! LOVEEEE too because I think this is whats been happening

Re: Equifax caught red handed

Stugotsv10 — Wed, 16 Jan 2019 16:04:26 GMT

how would I go about that?

Re: Equifax caught red handed

RobertEG — Wed, 16 Jan 2019 16:20:30 GMT

It is done by writing the CRA and making a formal request that they provide a description of the procedure they used to verify the accuracy of the dispute. See FCRA 611(a)6)(B)(iii) and 611(a)(7).

I would make sure to cite FCRA 611(a)(7) in the first line of your request to ensure that it is clear what you are requesting, and would send certified mail to establish a clear date for running of the required 15-day statutory response period.

Note that a so-called MOV request does not require that they get into the substance/proofs of the verification.

It is a procedural matter.

It is a request for disclosure of the procedure they used, and thus goes to the process rather than substance of the verification.

More specifically, it involves disclosure of who they contacted and who responded.

Re: Equifax caught red handed

Stugotsv10 — Wed, 16 Jan 2019 17:17:28 GMT

in the letter there is no way to demand to see a signature?

Re: Equifax caught red handed

RobertEG — Wed, 16 Jan 2019 21:42:27 GMT

You can request anything you want.

However, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement that they document.

The MOV process only mandates that they provide a "description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy or completeness of the (disputed) information."

Requiring proofs in support of a description is available if you become involved in civil action, as you can then obtain discovery of evidence by motion to the court.

Proofs are not required to support admin findings provided in the FCRA dispute or MOV processes.

Re: Equifax caught red handed

Stugotsv10 — Wed, 16 Jan 2019 22:07:10 GMT

got cha!!! Thanks

CFPB said Equifax is in the crosshairs right now!!! they have been screwing up badddd and breaking every law out there

Re: Equifax caught red handed

Anonymous — Sun, 20 Jan 2019 09:28:22 GMT

Exactly! They did something similar to me and said they verified from lexis nexus which has been Frozen for over a year and when i called they had not even contacted them. I called CS for equifax and they stated it was done via the 3rd party and they said they called and got court records and verified directly from them which i know is a lie. Even the supervisor was lying. It was a mess.

Re: Equifax caught red handed

Anonymous — Sun, 20 Jan 2019 18:58:36 GMT

Stugotsv10 ... put 'em in jail! Why are they allowed wander the streets?

Re: Equifax caught red handed

Anonymous — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 02:14:59 GMT

This is a real real overdue issue and I’d love to hear more about it as it progresses

Re: Equifax caught red handed

wHiTeSoL — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 06:04:18 GMT

To be 100% honest, I think you're looking too much into this and don't believe you caught them "red handed." You're jumping to conclusions.

You've admitted that you've disputed it many times before. They do not have the obligation of validiating it over and over again just because you continue to dispute it and that's what likely happened this time. You've disputed and they've validated many times before so when you disputed it again this time it was marked as verified without another investigation.

Edit: This is also one of the reasons why most people on here do not recommend just disputing everything willy nilly, eventually they won't take you seriously.

Re: Equifax caught red handed

Stugotsv10 — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 12:23:29 GMT

1. Disputing EVERYTHING willy nilly and disputing ONE item that is HONESTLY not yours over and over (because the outcome is a lie) and NOT one in the same.

2. They lied either way because a supervisor stated they got word BACK from the creditor on the 10th, that is impossible, so even if they did take a former validation thats still a lie, as is the first or ANY validation for that matter

Re: Equifax caught red handed

Anonymous — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 13:15:53 GMT

The OP is always good for a laugh. Just from browsing through their posting history with topics like Equifax admits to breaking the law and the number of interactions he/she claims to have had with Equifax, one has to wonder if Equifax hasn't blacklisted the OP as a vexatious or frivilous complainant. Especially when all these interactions appear to be on behalf of third-parties and not the actual OP.

Re: Equifax caught red handed

Stugotsv10 — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 16:44:52 GMT

no I'm just one to not let it go, If I'm talking for myself or on behalf of someone else, I'm not like the "sheep" that just accept anything.. your not going to piss on my head and tell me its raining. Also YES it does seem that Equifax is the 500Lb Gorilla

If you know a debt was not done by you can any 3rd party tell you differently and you accept it??? if so then maybe your afraid of confrontation

Re: Equifax caught red handed

RobertEG — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 18:03:59 GMT

Yes, if a consumer continues to file a dispute that is substantially the same as a prior dispute, it can be held to be "frivolous or irrelevant" which then permits the dispute to be dismissed without investigation or reinvestigation.

See FCRA 611(a)(3)(A) and FCRA 623(a)(8)(F)(i)(II).

However, if a CRA dismisses a dispute without conducting the reinvestigation required under section 611(a), which includes referral to the furnisher, they MUST provide an explicit and separate writtten notice to the consumer within 5 days, advising the consumer of the reason for holding the dispute to be frivolous or irrelevant, and thus not reinvestigated. See FCRA 611(a)(3)(B) and (C).

It is thus NOT adequate to simply internally dismiss a dispute via any "blacklist" procedure. They must conduct the full reinvestigation unless they have sent formal dismissal notice to the consumer.

I would not caste dispersions at the OP as a frivolous disputer based on assumed internal action of the CRA of any blacklist, as the CRA has a statutory obligation to send explicit notice to a consumer if they dismiss their dispute without full reinvestigation.

The CRA apparently did not send an explicit notice that the dispute was held to be frivolous or irrelevant, and thus there is not basis for any hidden blacklisting of the consumer.

Re: Equifax caught red handed

Anonymous — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 20:45:52 GMT

So if you disputed an item a few times before but did not get the resolution you wanted. Then you see that the govt. is closed, and think that it might be a good time to dispute again. Thinking there could be no validation, thus possibly have the debt wiped clean because of it?

Re: Equifax caught red handed

gdale6 — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 21:17:13 GMT

Lets all remember that posting must be done in an FSR manner and flaming isnt allowed. Thanks for understanding.

Re: Equifax caught red handed

RobertEG — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 22:01:22 GMT

Janus wrote:

_________________________________________________________________

No, that is not the way the dispute process works.

First, a second and subsequent dispute can be dismissed without any requirement that the CRA reinvestigate if it is substanatially the same as a prior dispute. Thus, there is no requirement that the CRA send to the furnisher for verification, or any requirement that the CRA then treat the dispute on the merits. It can simply be dismissed without any reinvesigation as "frivolous or irrelevant."

Second, a dispute must identify the asserted inaccuracy, and provide adequate information to permit the furnisher and CRA to investigate the assertion of inaccuracy. The dispute is then limited to the verification, correction, or if neither can be done, deletion of the disputed information. Unless the dispute asserts, with some basis, that the debt itself is not legitimate, then resolution of the dispute will not relate to verification of the debt, and the outcome will not "have the debt wiped clean."

Third, a finding of deletion of information under dispute is not absolute. If the furnisher cannot verify within the required (normally) 30-day reinvestigation period, and the CRA then deletes the disputed infomation based on inability to verify its accuracy, the furnisher can always, at any later time, submit a certification of accuracy of the information, and have it reinserted, notwithstanding the prior deletion.

If, in the case of a dispute regarding reporting by a government agency, with the agency unable to verify within the reinvestigation period, the agency can always, once they are back in business, send verification in the form of a certification of accuracy, and get the information reinserted.

The goal of the FCRA dispute process is to get information corrected, and not to impose a penalty against subsequent corrrection based lack of ability to provide verification within the statutory 30-day period.

Re: Equifax caught red handed

Stugotsv10 — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 22:56:01 GMT

not really no, I disputed it after they "won" then the government shut down..... when it shut down i did think to myself "I may win this hell yeah FINALLY"