can the cfpb force a cra to remove an entry after 30 days?

[bourgogne]

---

@JVille wrote:
Actually a glass of Chardonnay would be just perfect 😊
Once you have the actual recording numbers it is so easy to get copies for free. The Title Companies are wonderful as long as you as politely. Great resource that people do not know about!

---

white wine?  come on lol.  do you know the second part of my question?

[JVille]

For security sake most County recorders no longer put the full info in or Black it out. This is due to identity theft. But they leave enough info to make it very apparent that the person is easy to identify.

[bourgogne]

---

@JVille wrote:
For security sake most County recorders no longer put the full info in or Black it out. This is due to identity theft. But they leave enough info to make it very apparent that the person is easy to identify.

---

the question is does the full # need to in place for the cra to have it in my report.  this is a yes or no sort of deal.  my understanding is the full # needs to be there and if that is the case hello fico 800s

[JVille]

My understanding is no, the other requirements are there. There is absolutely enough to identify the person the claim is against.

[JVille]

Obviously if this is NOT you, then use this info to get it removed!

[elim]

---

@bourgogne wrote:

---

@JVille wrote:
For security sake most County recorders no longer put the full info in or Black it out. This is due to identity theft. But they leave enough info to make it very apparent that the person is easy to identify.

---

the question is does the full # need to in place for the cra to have it in my report.  this is a yes or no sort of deal.  my understanding is the full # needs to be there and if that is the case hello fico 800s

---

I have a similar case with a Fed Lien (Name, Addy, Last 4 digits of SSN, No DOB). EQ and EX promptly removed the lien after dispute. I have disputed twice with TU and filed a complaint with CFPB and still they just validate and it sits on my report. Good luck and please keep us posted.

[bourgogne]

---

@elim wrote:

---

@bourgogne wrote:

---

@JVille wrote:
For security sake most County recorders no longer put the full info in or Black it out. This is due to identity theft. But they leave enough info to make it very apparent that the person is easy to identify.

---

the question is does the full # need to in place for the cra to have it in my report.  this is a yes or no sort of deal.  my understanding is the full # needs to be there and if that is the case hello fico 800s

---

I have a similar case with a Fed Lien (Name, Addy, Last 4 digits of SSN, No DOB). EQ and EX promptly removed the lien after dispute. I have disputed twice with TU and filed a complaint with CFPB and still they just validate and it sits on my report. Good luck and please keep us posted.

---

hey there, hum this does not sound too good.  my understanding is that if the public record is redacted then it should be removed by the cra as it does not meet the criteria for reporting.  seems like the supporting text would be written into some law somewhere if this were a court case.  social security # to me is the complete XXX-XX-XXX format

[JVille]

I read it that the other identifying info and last 4 of social is acceptable. Name, address, BD & last 4 of SS is completely identifiable. In Oregon in the last five yrs (or longer) they have removed full SS but left enough to have no doubt who the lien is against.

[bourgogne]

@JVille,  re the last 4 of the ssn being good enough for the cra to report a pr, I am not sure I agree.  if it takes a full ssn to get credit, logic would dictate that it should take a full ssn to report an entry.  thinking crimson tide here, remember the argument that a fragment on the eam was not enough to launch?  same deal, a redaction is not a full number.  I just got a msg from wallethub that TU removed 2 out of 6 entries and changed the remaining 4 from Type: state tax lien to Type: Paid tac lien.  TAC lol, that is the level of precision we are dealing with here folks ha-ha.  They are not paid btw, TU is making this up as they go along.  Like a president I know.  in a way TU just proved the point, if they removed 2 liens with redacted ssn’s then they should remove the remaining ones as they are identical in the public recording as the 2 they removed.  Boom, my next letter is about ready to write itself to these jokers, going to use that same logic with EX as they removed 2 out of 6 as well – and it was a different 2 lol.  so much for big data, the squeaky wheel gets the oil