BMW Financial Incorrectly reporting 30 day lates

[Anonymous]

Hi guys,
I noticed that BMW was incorrectly reporting a 30 day late so I disputed it through Equifax. The tradeline was update on all three reports to TWO 30 day lates! I was late on a single payment, but not 30 days late ... so I looked up my old bank statements and confirmed that my late payment was 26 days late, and the account was brought back to current before the next month’s due date. So, I shouldn’t have a 30 day late ding on my otherwise flawless tradeline.

I took screenshots of my bank statements and summarized my findings, then submitted them with a second dispute request.

Has anyone had luck with having this sort of thing corrected? I’m a bit shocked that BMW investigated and then actually delivers an even worse (and inaccurate!) report.

[RobertEG]

A party who reports information to a CRA ("furnisher") is protected from liability for inaccurate reporting per se.

The FCRA "protects" furnishers from liability for inaccurate reporting in order not to discourage voluntary reporting to CRAs in fear of consumer civil actions based on inaccuracy of their reporting.  FCRA 623(c).

As an alternative, the FCRA does provide right for consumers to bring civil action stemming from inaccurate credit reporting, but only after they have first filed a formal dispute with the CRA, which then compels the furnisher to conduct a reasonable investigation of its accuracy, and reply back to the CRA.  If the furnisher's investigation then verifies the accuracy, that triggers the right of the consumer to then bring civil action contesting the reasonableness of the investigation of the dispute.

Thus, pursuing inaccurate reporting should always begin by filing a dispute with the CRA, and if the furnisher verifies the accuracy, the consumer than can pursue civil action.

In the posted scenario, their investigation apparently verified the accuracy of the previously reported 30-late, thus permitting the consumer to initiate civil action under FCRA 623(c), and getting their unreasonable investigation results reviewed by the courts.

You could also choose to treat their unreasonable investigation as an admin violation of the FCRA, and thus file a complaint with the CFPB for their review.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your in-depth response.  I'm well aware that I can file a civil suit - I have more than enough evidence to prove that I never had a 30 day late on the account. However, civil suits now cost hundreds of dollars at minimum, and the remedy is capped by FCRA at $1000 per infraction.

My question, more specifically, is if anyone has had any luck disputing "validated" but inaccurate tradelines with evidence proving the inaccuracy?

If I have to sue, I suppose I'll continue to send additional letters and requests beforehand to build a case and show willful inaction. 

[Anonymous]

To add, I did also report the incident to the CFPB the same day I requested a reinvestigation.

[randomguy1]

@fauxvirgo - I just noticed this too and am disputing. Did you ever get this resolved? Please update.

[Anonymous]

No. They responded with some kind of reasoning that made no sense, and actually ADDED a second 30 day late, during the month I traded the vehicle. (I traded it before the due date.) I got busy with other things and didn’t get around to calling them. I suppose when I get serious about buying a home I’ll get a live person on the phone and sort through it again, but I don’t have the energy for it right now.