Need to Fax Dispute to Equifax

[Legal_Girl]

I was trying to dispute an item on my credit report with Equifax online dispute.  I apparently made a typo because it told me they could not verify that I am who I say I am (paraphrasing, of course), so it said I would have to fax my dispute with a copy of my D/L.. My question is - do I have to put my SS #, DOB, etc?? Or can they just do it from my D/L info??? I hate faxing that info and prefer not to.  I have my last collection account that was paid in full in March and OC has not notified Equifax.  I went to the Equifax dispute cite over the weekend, but there was some other issue and it said it could not process disputes at that time, now this..

What personal info do I absolutely HAVE to put in the Faxed dispute.  I mean, I am already having to send my DL.

If anyone can lead me down the correct path, I would really appreciate it and thank you for your time.  I love this forum!!!.

[llecs]

I would call them and ask for what info they require. IIRC, some in here faxed their DL, SSN card, and a utility bill to show residency, but that may or may not be required. Also try searching CRA and fax over in mortgage loans. There might be a sticky post there with the CRA info and I recall posts mentioning what others did in faxing over info.

[RobertEG]

I would recomend bypassing the CRA entirely and file a direct dispute with the creditor, with basis for the dispute being their failure to have complied with FCRA 623(a)(2), which is their obligation to promptly update their reporting so as to maintain its current accuracy.

[Downto0]

Robert, the OC is already not responding as they should:

I have my last collection account that was paid in full in March and OC has not notified Equifax.

My guess is that the OC won't respond to a dispute either.    If the op disputes using the 611 method, as the op is trying to do, and if the OC verifies inaccurate information then the op can sue the OC for verifying that inaccurate information.  The 623(a) method does not allow a private right of action and the op would have to send the unanswered dispute to the FTC and hope that they sue.  Not likely but even if they do there is no money for the op whereas the 611 method allows statutory and punitive damages for willful violations.

Op, I'm also interested in disputing using email.  I just posted a message asking about that method instead of using certified mail.  My concern is about establishing that one did send a dispute since there would be no "green card".  If you are having trouble with the email method then there is the old standby with certified mail.  I don't know that I would trust faxing either.  You can always follow up with the post office but I don't know how one would follow up on misdirected faxes or emails.

[RobertEG]

Good point, downto0, as regards the ultimate ability of the consumer to sue for actual or punitive damages, as the direct dispute process, per section 623(c), is not subject to the monetary damages provisions of FCRA 616 or 617.  Thus, a civil action for violation of section 623(a)(8) cannot include a request for award of damages.

However,  that does not preclude a consumer from bringing civil action against a furnisher of information for theiir violation of the direct dispute process, and thus seeking court order for compliance.  One just cannot include as part of that action a request for damages.  Not, in my opinion, reason to exclude use of the clearly superior direct dispute process, whch cuts the CRA out of unecessary middle-man involvement.  If it did preclude civil action, would it not also apply to the FTC?

If a furisher of information ignores a direct dispute, which I find doubful simply because they have failed to date to update information, that is a slam-dunk violation of section 623(a)(8) and 16 CFR 660.4.

[Downto0]

I see your point.  If a consumer makes a direct dispute to the data furnisher and they do not investigate, nor do they list their trade line as disputed, then they are liable to the FCRA 623(a) (which the FTC would have to sue) but they have just violated FDCPA 807(8) because they did not communicate that the debt is disputed and the consumer can sue here.

However, I think there is more money in punitive damages with a 611 dispute to the CRAs if the data furnisher does not respond or responds with false information and/or forgets to update their trade line to reflect that the account is disputed.  I just read a case where a consumer got awarded $80,000 for punitive damages because the data furnisher did respond to a 611 dispute but did not tell the CRAs that their trade line had been disputed:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14619539324727618436&q=Saunders+v+BB%26T&hl=en&as_sdt=2,...

It's an interesting case and has a lot of info as to how the FCRA works.

I have not had any luck with the 623(a) method but I have two lawsuits lined up under the 611 method.  The 623(a) method is more for a creditor with whom the consumer has good relations.  This creditor wants to keep this consumer and will generally work to resolve disputes.  Collectors, especially JDBs, just don't care and generally won't respond to a dispute except to list their trade line as disputed.  They won't respond to the consumer because they know that the consumer can't sue for damages and it is not likely that the consumer will even know that they can send a complaint into the FTC. 

[Downto0]

After thinking about the Saunders' case I just posted I realized than one needs to dispute directly to the data furnisher first using the 623(a) method.  Then you dispute to the CRAs using the 611 method.  This is what Saunders did and he got awarded punitive damages of $80,000 because the data furnisher he directly disputed did not report their trade line as disputed. 

The dispute verification form provided BB & T with two opportunities to indicate that Saunders had contested the legitimacy of the debt with BB & T. BB & T therefore could have indicated that it considered the debt uncollectible and also reported that Saunders had disputed the debt; if BB & T had done so, Trans Union would have reported both the debt and the dispute and would not have considered the debt in determining Saunders' total credit score. Thus, BB & T's decision to report the debt but not the dispute resulted in a 147*147 much lower credit score for Saunders than a report of both the debt and the dispute.

So, for the purpose of allowing the collector to hang themselves, a 623(a) dispute must be first then the 611 dispute.  At the very least, the data furnisher (collector) may list their trade line as "disputed" and your credit score will go up.  At the most, the data furnisher will not list their trade line as "disputed" and they will be liable to the FCRA for punitive damages.

So, ultimately, Robert, you were right about disputing using the 623(a) method but then, whether the data furnisher responds, or not, file a 611 dispute to see if the data furnisher does list their trade line as disputed.