Equifax Disputes seem to be pointless

[k0csi]

So, on my Equifax it has all my previous accounts correctly listed, including a couple of late payments from back when I was in college still.  There was one 60-day which I never remembered having, so I disputed that.  I don't know if they just didn't take the time to actually investigate that or not they replied back saying there was "no historical account information on the account" and they changed the 60-day to a 30-day instead.  After that, I noticed that the reason I have so many lates is because the account I have lates on, is on my CR two times.  Same principle amounts, same payments, same account number even, but is listed under two banks (kind of like aliases for the same bank though).  I disputed that with them online and they replied back that it was reported correctly and dismissed it.  Do they even look at the accounts when you dispute it?  Would it be better to just go talk to my bank about it and see that they can get it resolved?  It's only on the Equifax report that it's duplicated.

In addition to the duplicated accounts, there were a couple inquiries that I disputed because I never concented to these companies pulling a report.  I was mortgage hunting last year, to get an idea and possibly get into a house if I could have but there were a couple that must have got my info indirectly and offered/called me about mortgage stuff.  So, I disputed them, leaving the legitimate inquires that I did actually talk to someone with real interest in a mortgage on there.  Again, Equifax replied that basically they report what they're told and that I'd have to contact the creditors myself to resolve any issues.  What's the point of disputing things if I have to investigate it all myself anyways?  Isn't that the point of disputing, is for them to make the creditor prove that it should be there?  Not say I'm guilty and must prove my innocence?  Just seems like disputes in general don't really get you anywhere with the CRs, at least Equifax so far in my experience.

Is this normal?  Anyone else dispute things and get similar results?  Is talking to the creditor themselves easier/quick/more efficient than disputing items?

[RobertEG]

It is a common misconception that the dispue process requires the furnisher to document their finding, and "prove" the accuracy.

That is not how the dispute process is structured.

With no judge empowered under the disptue process to compel both sides to produce alll relevant evidence and empowered to rule on what that evidence shows, legal proofs are not a requiremnt of the process. 

Collection of evidence and hearing on legal proofs is a lengthy process.  Congress chose, when creating the disptue process, to create a quick and simple process, concluded in 30'ish days, that requires the furnisher to conduct a reasonable investigation of the accuracy, and report that determination back to the CRA.  Their determiantion must be supported by the findings of their investigation, but the process does not compel them to produce that documentation, or "prove" the matter, as no party is empowered under the process to conduct that function.  Some statutes provide for administratie law judges to hear diisputes over the facts or to hear appelas.  The FCRA is not one of those statutes.  Elsewise, disputes would not be concluded in 30 days.

If a furnisher reports back to a CRA that they have investigated and verify the accuracy, in most cases, the CRA has no independent basis to make a contrary determinaton in their reinvestigation, so for the most part, they rubber stamp the verification provided by the furnisher.

A furnisher who provides verification without having conducted a reasonable investigation, or who reports verificaation that is contrary to the facts found in their own investigation, does so at their peril.  If the issue ever finds it way to the court, they could additionally be found in violation of the FCRA.

So you get theri statement that they have conducted a reasonable investigation, and have adequate basis to verify the accuracy of the disputed information.

If still not satisfied with the results of the FCRA administrative process, a consumer can always file legal action, and get the factual isuues before a judge empowered to require both sides to produce all evidence, and make a legal ruling on who is correct. 

[k0csi]

So what you are implying if I understand correctly...is that disputing really doesn't matter because they can reply to CRA however they want to essentially?  That's what I got from that.  Proof or no proof it's still just based on someones "word" and not necessarily verification of the facts.  Doesn't that negate the whole purpose of having a CR that is supposed to reflect the integrity of the individual who wants credit if it can so easily be skewed by incompetent or lazy creditors who refuse to properly investigate matters?

[pipeguy]

The 3 primary CRA's use the eOscar software system which allows a creditor to verify something as simple as name, address or account number and answer "verified". Most everything is done computer to computer with no real investigation. Search this site and the net for eOscar - you won't be happy with what you find.

[RobertEG]

Verification without having conducted a reasonable investigation and/or verifying when the investigation shows the information to be inaccurate is a willful vioation of their requirments under the FCRA, which would subject them to damanges under FCRA 616/617.  So, no, a party is not free to verify without support.

Yes, it relies upon the furnisher having complied, and providing a thruthful determination based on a reasonable investigation.

The alternative would be to conduct a full legal proceeding on any contested issue under dispute.

For better or worse, it is an administrative process intended to provide prompt determinations that at least are based on a reasonable investigation and honest evaluation of the accuracy of the reported information..

[pipeguy]

The written law and intent of the law is one thing, being willing to pay an attorney to "prove" that eOscar automates the process with no actual verification is another. Anyone who has dealt with Equifax (especially) has first hand experience that NO ONE is paying attention to any actual documentation.

http://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/060403lb.pdf

http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/pr-reports/report-automated_injustice.pdf

http://consumercreditwatch.wordpress.com/tag/leonard-a-bennett/

http://epic.org/privacy/preemption/hendricks6.12.03.pdf

[RobertEG]

I totally agree, pipeguy!

The consumer advocate groups' criticism of the CRA position that they, and they alone, can determine what is or is not relevant information provided by a consumer, and thus what they must forward to a furnisher as part of the dispute process, is THE primary reason for implementation of the direct dispute process, which permits a consumer to forward ALL arguments and information directly to the furnisher, thus avoiding the dispute sanitation process that is part of the e-Oscar system.

Then, at least the furnisher cannot argue that their investigation was limited due to only having received a coded reason for the consumer's assertion of inaccuracy.

A great reason for using the direct dispute process as opposed to sending your dispute through a CRA.