Method of Verification--- in the real world................

[Anonymous]

Does case law and or opinions exist to prove MOV teeth should be feared by CRA's

[RobertEG]

It depends upon when and how you have exercised your right to request their method of verification.

In the real world, unless you specifically requested, in your initial letter of dispute, that they provide to you, as part of their reporting of the results of their investigtion of the dispute back to you, the statement that you also requested "a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the informatiion," then they have no initial obligation to report their method of verification in their reporting to you of the results of their investigation. FCRA 611(a)(6)(B)(iii).

If MOV language was not included in your intitial dispute letter, then you then can file a separate request under FCRA 611(a)(7) for such a description of their procedures used.  That then sets a separate 15 day statutory date of compliance for them to describe the procedures they used.  I would always suggest inquiry as to their use of their automated e-OSCAR process as part of any MOV request, for that is the heart of the problem with their entire dispute process, and why I personsally would never dispute through a CRA, but would use the direct dispute process.

This is not based on opinions or case law, it is based on explicit federal statute.  I know of no case law that, considering the exrpress statutory language, has made any ruling that is even remotely contrary.  .  Violation of express federal statute probably carries the fear of substantial teeth marks if not complied with.

Avoid all of this silliness, including their stupid e-Oscar process, and dont dispute through a CRA.  Use the new direct dispute process under FCRA 623(a)(8), and just take the CRA out of the whole dispute process. 

[chasmith]

But have any data furnishers suffered any consequences for evading the direct dispute process?  I don't believe the debtor has a direct right of actuion, and we know the FTC won't take individual complaints.

An online FDIC complaint might have an impact on a National Bank but otherwise I don't see this as a regulation backed by any consequences.

[RobertEG]

If it is a violation of federal law, recourse is always available.  The issue is how to take it.

The direct dispute process was only fully implemented as of 7/1/2010, with the publication of the implementing rules set forth in 16 CFR 660.4.   It thus does not, admittedly.  have a long history of case law precedents.  But it is an actionable item under  fed statue under FCRA 623(a)8).

I agree that the FTC usually has little concern in enforcement of indivual consumer FCRA violations other than for big, class-action matters.So probably not a hopeful sponsor for initiation of legal action on consumer behalf.

But a consumer also has recourse to their state attorney general, who may have more interest. Many are elected officials, and may want to post a win on the wall.

If the fed and state regulatory agencies do not wish to initiate action, any consumer can bring their own independent civil action in federal court for violation of either the FCRA or the FDCPA.