Are disputes with CRAs worth it?

[metallicrab]

I've seen mixed answers here on the boards regarding this issue. Would really like to understand this better. 

I have some baddies; some are old and past SOL, others are still within SOL. I've read the "where do I start"

thread, but I still didn't quite find the answer to this question. Is there very much success with with disputing 

information directly with the CRAs? Better to just PFD?

Any information is appreciated!

[gdale6]

If they are reporting incorrect info yes they are worth it.

[randyrhodes]

You should only dispute incorrectly reporting information. If your goal is to get them removed then PFD is the way to go. Expired SOL only means they can't sue you so you may have success offering a lesser amount in exchange for deletion of trade line. Those within the SOL will probably cost you the full amount to settle once you "poke the bear" per se contacting the CAs or OCs. Best of luck

[metallicrab]

Thanks much!

[guiness56]

If they are repoting incorrectly, I would use the CRA as a last resort.

Send the furnisher of the information a direct dispute under FCRA 623a.  It is the same type of dispute but leaves the CRA out of it and goes straight to the reporter of the information.

They fall under the same guidelines in the FCRA as does the CRA and have 30 days to respond directly to you.

The more information you can provide them the less likely they can say is correct.

It must also be a valid dispute.

[RobertEG]

+1

The direct dispute process has numerous advantages, and would usually be my recommended option unless your dispute relates to personal identifier information, public record information, or credit report inquiries, which are all specifically exempted from the direct dispute process.

As an aside, the biggest "problem" I see with either dispute process is that consumers have the false expectation that a dispute requires that the furnisher must provide documentation to support their verification of accuracy of their reporting, or that they must "prove" the accuracy.

Both dispute processes require the furnisher of the disputed information to condcut a reasonable investigation, and make a determination supported by that investigation as to the accuracy of their reporting.  The primary difference in the two dispute processes is that when you file via the CRA, they are the one who must then forward a copy of the dispute to the furnisher, along with your supporting documentation, while with a direct dispute, you forward that info directly to the furnisher, thus assuring they get all documentation and supporting arguments.

Both processes were intended by congress to be conducted in a short and definitive time period, normally 30 days.

Taking that approach precludes the consideration of evidentiary issues, which is a legal process, and eliminates the need for adminisraive judges to consider the inevitable arguments over whether all evidence has been provided, and what that evidence shows.

You get a "reasonable investigation" and the statement of the furnisher that they have sufficient basis in their records to affirm the accuracy of the disputed information.

You dont get a legal requirement to produce evidence, or a finding of fact or law as to what any evidence proves or disproves.

If you disagree with the outcome of a dispute based on your interpretation of the evidence, then recourse is to file civil action and get the issues before a judge.

If you disagree with what you consider to be a clear misapplication or violation of the FCRA, you can file a complaint with the CFPB for their administrative review of compliance with the FCRA.