Equifax caught red handed

[Anonymous]

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

[wHiTeSoL]

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. 

[Stugotsv10]

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 

[Anonymous]

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.

[Stugotsv10]

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

[RobertEG]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[gdale6]

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

[RobertEG]

Janus wrote:

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?

_________________________________________________________________

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.

[Stugotsv10]

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"