Experts - I need advice on how to write a proper dispute?

[Anonymous]

I short sold my home back in 2012 which left a "Settlment - Less than full balance" which is hurting my credit and I want it removed. My credit is perfect other than that.

I read an article that says, if I dispute an entry thru a credit bureau, the bureau has to check with the company on file thru their contact info listed on my report as to the valididty of the claim and if thay cannot get that verification they by law have to remove the entry, which would be my derogotory short sale settlement remark. I know the phone number on the lender info is no good and am willing to bet the 5 year old address is bad as well. These companies manuver around so much especially small ones. It's Ocwen and/or Homward Residential. I'm not sure if the bureau diggs for good contact info if the info on th report is bad or just goes on the info listed. If it's the latter i stand a good chance of getting this removed thru a dispute because the bureau will not be able to make contact with the lender for varification! If I am way off base here please let me know.

I'f I am on the right track can some of you that really have experience with this tell me the best way to word a dispute letter to the credit bureaus regarding this set of circumstances?

Thank you!

[RobertEG]

The investigation procedure set forth for disputes filed via a CRA (FCRA 611) does not compel a CRA to delete an entry if the furnisher does not provide verification.

It requires deletion of disputed information only if the CRA cannot verify or corrrect, and any such deletion only applies to the disputed information, and not to an entire account, including other accurate information.

The CRA is authorized, under FCRA 611, to conduct a reinvestigation of disputed information.  Yes, they are required to forward a copy of the dispute to the furnisher, and yes, the investigation results from the furnisher becomes part of the basis for the finding by the CRA.  However, lack of a report back to the CRA does not constitute a final, required finding.  The CRA must reach that determination.  If the CRA has basis for its own verification or correction, they can do so.

Many disputes involve an assertion by the consumer of how the information is inaccurate, and what the correct reporting should be.

"Settled for less" is such information, and deletion of that special comment can be done by the CRA under its own reinvestigation authority without deletion of the entire account.

[Anonymous]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

The investigation procedure set forth for disputes filed via a CRA (FCRA 611) does not compel a CRA to delete an entry if the furnisher does not provide verification.

It requires deletion of disputed information only if the CRA cannot verify or corrrect, and any such deletion only applies to the disputed information, and not to an entire account, including other accurate information.

The CRA is authorized, under FCRA 611, to conduct a reinvestigation of disputed information.  Yes, they are required to forward a copy of the dispute to the furnisher, and yes, the investigation results from the furnisher becomes part of the basis for the finding by the CRA.  However, lack of a report back to the CRA does not constitute a final, required finding.  The CRA must reach that determination.  If the CRA has basis for its own verification or correction, they can do so.

Many disputes involve an assertion by the consumer of how the information is inaccurate, and what the correct reporting should be.

"Settled for less" is such information, and deletion of that special comment can be done by the CRA under its own reinvestigation authority without deletion of the entire account.

---

Thanks, Robert and that is exactly what I'm looking to do. I'm not asking the CRA to delete the entire Homward residential entry or account, just the remark that the debt was "settled for less".... My point is and the question I'm asking is, if I dispute the "settled for less" remark and for instance I contend in the dispute that the loan was paid in the full amount NOT a settlement so the remark is erroneous and I want it removed. The CRA will then have to contact the lender because of the dispute to varify the true status of the loan, correct? Now, the second part of my question has been and most importantly, if the contact info (phone number and address) for the lender that is listed under their account or entry on the CRA is no longer good therefore the CRA cannot make contact with the lender thru that info, will the CRA then have to or are they likely to remove the disputed remark because they were not able to contact the lender to corroborate the true loan status? Or, do they typically start researching to find new phone numbers and addresses to contact the bank for varification of status? My hope is that the CRA will call and/or send a letter to the bad number and address, get nothing in return and then remove the remark in my favor by default so to speak.

Again, in a situation like this how should I word a dispute like this?

[RobertEG]

In a dispute, the consumer can include any factual information or arguments that support their position.

In the posted scenario, the issue is whether the loan was paid in full.

Do you have documentation in the form of billing statements showing the amount of the remaining debt at the time you made your final payment?

That would be factual documentation to support your allegation.

Lacking verification from the furnisher, the CRA will likely accept that factual documentation as adequate to reach a finding that the debt was paid in full, and thus delete the special comment.

[Anonymous]

I have a full file of the short sale, I will look thru it and see if there's anything I can use. Thanks!