Credit bureaus refusing to comply with MOV requirements.....next step?

[bass_playr]

I have a rather large account that was placed on my credit reports.  The account is fraudulent, but claims a delinquent balance near $90K.  When I say that it's fraudulent, the main issue is that the debt collector reporting it has no legitimate connection to the account.  I was paying as agreed on an account, which was then sold off to a different entity in 2006.  The same original lender then claimed to sell off the same account again in 2006(to a different 3rd party than the first sale).  This happened again in 2008 and 2009.  So, the OC "sold" the account a grand total of 4 times, which I cannot even imagine how it would be possible since they sold it but never claimed to buy it back.  How can you sell something that you no longer own?  

Anyway, they "sold" it again in 2013.  Never mind the fact that they have not owned it in years, they "sold" it.  So the party that's on my reports is NOT the party that the OC claims to have sold it to in 2013, but they claim they bought it directly from the OC in 2013.  They even fabricated an assignment showing that they bought it straight from the OC.  

Sorry, didn't mean to get so side-tracked.  Here is the actual issue for right now.  I'm litigating against this debt collector so hopefully we will have that end of things handled.  But regarding credit reports, they reported it to all three bureaus.  I disputed it on all three 2 months ago because even by the OC's claim, the account became delinquent in 2010.  So, the 7 year reporting time has expired.  TU removed it within a week, no issue.  Experian claims it was verified as accurate.  Equifax also claims it was verified, but in the EQ report, this debt collector removed all payment history from the entry.

I then contacted EX and EQ to request MOV.  Neither one wants to comply.  They both sent me a generic "this is how we handle disputes" letter, and both of them chose not to identify the name and address of who they contacted to verify the info.  I contacted both of them again, demanding that they provide for me the actual info that's required by the law.  FCRA requires that, if I request it, they must provide within 15 days the method they used to determine the accuracy of this specific dispute--not a generic "here's how we handle disputes" notice.  It also requires them to identify, if I request, the name and address of who was contacted to verify.  My guess is that they did not contact anyone, just checked a database and thought it was good enough.  The messed up thing is that not only was the OC still reporting on one of these---with a different DOFD than the debt collector was reporting to the same bureau, but the debt collector has changed the DOFD in its entries at least 2 times now.  

I provided the CRAs with documentation----a letter from the OC that proves that the account was delinquent in 2010, as well as copies of previous credit reports from each one showing the changing DOFDs.  They still refuse to remove the obsolete entries and refuse to properly provide MOV.  Since I'm already litigating against the debt collector, FCRA issues with them are being addressed.  But now, what's the best way to get these CRAs to knock off the nonsense?  I know they have a duty to remove info that they have sufficient reason to know is patently false or outdated.  Is it time to file a suit against them?  Or is there something else that should be done first?

[RobertEG]

You have two issues, and possibly two different defendants.

First is whether the investigation conducted in the prior dispute was reasonable, or whether they verified with knowledge that the information was inaccurate, and second whether the CRA is separately in violation of the MOV request.

The first is a violation that is subject to private civil action under FCRA 623(c), and the second is a violation of FCRA 611(a)(7) for not providing a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the previously disputed information (i.e., a so-called MOV request).

What are the specific violations that are asserted in your current civil complaint?

Is it only a violation of the reasonableness of the  investigation of your prior dispute, or did it include other grounds?

If so, is the defendant identified as the furnisher (creditor or debt collector) for their lack of reasonable investigation of the dispute, or is the defendant identified as the CRA for their lack of reasonable reinvestigation once their received response from the furnisher?

It appears that you have not yet included as a complaint the separate violation of the MOV requirment of section 611(a)(7).

If the pending civil action is against the debt collector,then the MOV issue would be totally separate, as it is an entirely different party.

However, if the pending civil action is against the CRA for lack of reasonable investigation of your prior dispute, then perhaps you could modifly the complaint by adding the additional grounds of their violation of the MOV requirement.

As matters are apparently becoming more complex, it might be prudent to obtain services of an attorney.

[bass_playr]

[QUOTE]You have two issues, and possibly two different defendants.

First is whether the investigation conducted in the prior dispute was reasonable, or whether they verified with knowledge that the information was inaccurate, and second whether the CRA is separately in violation of the MOV request.[/QUOTE]

Hi Robert, thanks for replying.  Here's some more detail.

First, the previous "investigation" was a sham.  The furnisher is the party I'm currently litigating against, and I even have letters from them--their own letterhead--informing me that other entities are the holder of the account and that they themselves have nothing to do with it.  But then, they report it on the credit report as though they are involved.  They cannot both claim to be involved and then claim to not be involved at the same time.  So, if anything was actually verified by the furnisher, then it had to be done by negligent or intentional misrepresenation, since they already admit no connection to the account.

[QUOTE]The first is a violation that is subject to private civil action under FCRA 623(c), and the second is a violation of FCRA 611(a)(7) for not providing a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the previously disputed information (i.e., a so-called MOV request).[/QUOTE]

That's actually more to the question I'm asking here.  The MOV request is the issue I'm looking into right now.  The CRA told me that they cannot provide an actual MOV for me.  They can only send me a generic "here's how we handle disputes" statement.  I could be wrong, but my take on FCRA--the wording itself--says that if requested, they must provide the method they used to investigate this specific dispute--not how they generically claim to address disputes.  Would you know if FCRA requires them to specifically state what they did to verify this specific disputed entry, or does their generic statement cover their butts on this?  

I also asked specifically for the contact info for who they spoke to, as FCRA allows.  They actually told me that they could not provide any info on who they--the CRA--spoke to, that I would have to contact the furnisher because ONLY THE FURNISHER would have that info.  So, they claim they contacted the furnisher, but cannot tell me how, when, where, who, etc etc....because they don't know?  

[QUOTE]What are the specific violations that are asserted in your current civil complaint?[/QUOTE]

Currently only litigating against the furnisher, which is a debt collector.  I am litigating UFTPA for my state, as well as fraud, which was amended to include fraud upon the court because they got caught fabricating fake documentation, plus FDCPA and FCRA.  They took an account that was closed years ago, reported it as "open" on 2 of my reports and "closed" on the third.  This is an account involving a promissory note with an acceleration clause.  The OC claimed to accelerate the note back in 2010.  But the current defendant has reported for the last couple years that I'm late on payments each month---when there are no more monthly payments to be made.  Acceleration takes that away.  So, each month, they keep adding a full monthly payment onto the past due balance, which accounting-wise is very much incorrect.  The principal balance delinquency does not increase after acceleration, only interest and fees can be included in there.  So they have overcharged the past due balance by a ton.  Then, they changed the payment amount as well, so that each month, they add an amount to the "past due" column that is about 160% of what the actual payment amount was supposed to be.  I could go on all day, they made such a mess out of this.

Currently, I'm asserting FCRA violations because I disputed as FCRA requires.  The furnisher verified as accurate. They verified incorrect balances that are thousands higher than even their corresponding collection letters claim was owed at those times.  So, incorrect balances reported.  Also, incorrect status reported, and they also re-aged the account at least three times.  They keep changing the DOFD that they report so that they can keep reporting it longer.  I have earlier copies of their entry on my CRAs showing these changes.  

Anyway, I am asking here about possible action regarding the CRAs.  I know it would have to be a separate suit, and that's fine.  But I don't want to jump without making sure that there's a legit case to jump into.

[QUOTE]It appears that you have not yet included as a complaint the separate violation of the MOV requirment of section 611(a)(7).[/QUOTE]

You are correct, as this would only be a claim I could use against the CRA and as of right now the CRAs are not part of any case with me.  If this is a violation of MOV requirements, then that will change.

[QUOTE] As matters are apparently becoming more complex, it might be prudent to obtain services of an attorney.[/QUOTE]

I originally thought the same thing.  But down here, attorneys that actually want to help are so few and far between.  For example, the one attorney that I thought would be willing to help me with the case against the furnisher would only agree to get involved if I backed off of some of my claims, because that attorney cares more about their own best interest than mine.  I cannot pay an attorney to handle my case if they are not willing to actually handle my case.  If I'm wrong about a legal theory, or a suspected violation, that's one thing, I can take being told I'm wrong.  But for an attorney to tell me that I have a legit concern about a violation of law and then refuse to press that issue for me because of their own future court dealings, that's a whole different story.

I guess this means it's time to consider filing a case against the CRAs.  My big concern there, do CRAs violate the MOV requirements of FCRA if they only provide the generic "here's what we do" notice in response to a MOV request?  Or does FCRA permit that generic response as "good enough"?  That's really what this all hinges on at this point.

[RobertEG]

Case law has generally held that compliance requires that they must identify, at a minimum, the parties to whom they sent copies of the dispute.  A boilerplate letter summarizing their general obligations under the law would not be adequate.

[bass_playr]

Thank you VERY much....that gives me a good starting point!