@twanswife916 wrote:
@09Lexie wrote:Just a reminder, myFICO is not a credit repair organization. We only allow the exchange of information on how to remove real errors from your credit report. The suggestion of disputing accurate data in the hopes that the CRA will delete the derog will get your post deleted.
.
I am not in any way suggesting disputing accurate information. I am clearing stating by law that I and any other comsumer have the right to request that the CRA provide the documentation they used to verify the accuracy of the accounts. Doing this is fully legal.
My post was a reminder of what can be discussed in the event the thread goes in that direction.
@09Lexie wrote:
@twanswife916 wrote:
@09Lexie wrote:Just a reminder, myFICO is not a credit repair organization. We only allow the exchange of information on how to remove real errors from your credit report. The suggestion of disputing accurate data in the hopes that the CRA will delete the derog will get your post deleted.
.
I am not in any way suggesting disputing accurate information. I am clearing stating by law that I and any other comsumer have the right to request that the CRA provide the documentation they used to verify the accuracy of the accounts. Doing this is fully legal.
My post was a reminder of what can be discussed in the event the thread goes in that direction.
Ever known me to be the bad guy, with exception to bad pics? 
@mo6579 wrote:
@twanswife916 wrote:
@Burned2manybridgesB4 wrote:Yes FCRA 609; The Federal Law 15 U.S. Code § 1681g - Disclosures to consumers requires CRA’s to disclose the sources of information regarding the negative events that are being reported by them upon request by the consumer.
This federal law hold the CRA just as responsbile as the OC. The CRA must provide any comsumer with verifiable proof (i.e. original documentation of late payments, judgement petitions, BK petitions, credit applications w/signature etc.) upon written request. From what I have read through research the CRA's do not have this. All correspondence with the OC is done Electronically therefore with out having this documentation in their own files there is really no way for them to truly verify the information is valid.
Where does it say all that in your second paragraph? What part of FCRA 609 says any of that (Please quote)? What federal law or case law?
"Source", as in "Disclosing the source", doesn't refer to the statment you were late on. The source CRAs rely on is the company that reports to them. The source the reporters rely on is your statements etc. So the CRAs are obligated to tell you where they get their information from. They can't just post a tradeline with the creditor name blank.
Mo6579,
If read my thread you would see the highlighted in red. I have done research on this for a few weeks. Have looked at the law, been on other forums and asking lots and lots of questions. The 2nd paragragh is in my own words interpetation.
@twanswife916 wrote:
@mo6579 wrote:
@twanswife916 wrote:
@Burned2manybridgesB4 wrote:Yes FCRA 609; The Federal Law 15 U.S. Code § 1681g - Disclosures to consumers requires CRA’s to disclose the sources of information regarding the negative events that are being reported by them upon request by the consumer.
This federal law hold the CRA just as responsbile as the OC. The CRA must provide any comsumer with verifiable proof (i.e. original documentation of late payments, judgement petitions, BK petitions, credit applications w/signature etc.) upon written request. From what I have read through research the CRA's do not have this. All correspondence with the OC is done Electronically therefore with out having this documentation in their own files there is really no way for them to truly verify the information is valid.
Where does it say all that in your second paragraph? What part of FCRA 609 says any of that (Please quote)? What federal law or case law?
"Source", as in "Disclosing the source", doesn't refer to the statment you were late on. The source CRAs rely on is the company that reports to them. The source the reporters rely on is your statements etc. So the CRAs are obligated to tell you where they get their information from. They can't just post a tradeline with the creditor name blank.
Mo6579,
If read my thread you would see the highlighted in red. I have done research on this for a few weeks. Have looked at the law, been on other forums and asking lots and lots of questions. The 2nd paragragh is in my own words interpetation.
Verifiable proof doesn't necessarily mean the original documents. In bks, tax liens, judgments etc, those docs are with the court, county etc. The ability to verify is done electronically for those reasons.
In 1971 the FCRA ststes that "a CRA is not required to remove accurate derogatory information from the file of a consumer unless the information is outdated or cannot be verified." If you search the Appellant Court cases that are based on FCRA where the Appellant Court defines the term "VERIFIED" as stated "a credit reporting agency is required to have a copy of the original documentation (signed credit application, certified copy of BK petition, certifird copy of judgement petition etc) that was used to open the account verifying that the accounts they are reporting belongs to the consumer"
The CRA's do not have this. Electronic communication with the OC is just like Word of Mouth. Just because someone says it doesn't make it true. The OC obviously have the documentation to report such events however the CRA is passing this information on to other creditors therefore they are required by law to have the same documentation. How do yo thing consumers have been able to successfully sue the CRA's for FCRA violations. The court of law is based off physical evidence and that is what the FCRA 609-The Federal Law 15 U.S. Code § 1681g - Disclosures to consumers is requesting. If I can get it from my OC then I should also be able to get it from the CRA's since they are passing the information along to others.
So i've had a few collections that were IIB deleted from my TU and EX reports. It seems as though they looked upon my request as disputes even though I wasnt disputing the account itself.
