Topic: REQUIRED READING - Len Bennett's Testimony

[Flyingifr]

Before you start disputing a TL in your CRA file, you MUST read this in its entirety - it details HOW a CRA "investigates" a dispute and shows how the cards are stacked against you in any dispute.

http://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/060403lb.pdf#search='leonard%20bennett'

For those who can't find the time to read it all, here is the "Executive Summary"

1. FCRA requires CRA's to investigate a TL when a consumer indicates a dispute. FCRA makes absolutely no mandate or dictate on how or how thorough  the "investigation" must be - merely that it investigate.

2.  When you dispute a TL, the CRA will disregard any documentation you send to them. Their "investigation" will entail merely going back to the source of the TL and ask "Is this (pointing to the TL as it is in your CRA file) what your records indicate?" Of course the source of the information will say "yes".

3. At that point, as far as the CRA is concerned, they have "investigated", and the TL is proven, and any further dispute of that TL will be considered "frivolous", since the CRA already investigated.

This kind of "investigation" can be compared with the police asking a suspect "Did you Commit the Crime?", and merely accepting at face value the suspect's "No" and considering the case closed.

That is why I always suggest informing the SOURCE of the TL that you dispute the TL in its entirety, by CMRRR, THEN disputing it with the CRA. The CRA will obviously "verify" the TL, but now you will have a FCRA cause of action against the source of the TL for failing to notify the CRA that you dispute the TL.

If a creditor told a CRA that you are a cannibal, the CRA would be able to verify that you are a  cannibal.

[Flyingifr]

Before it gets lost and the link doesn't work, here's  copy.

[Rottweiler]

Since the attachment was lost...I have located the document and am reattaching it.

[foolsmission]

Flying
How bout "riffing" on how to FACTA dispute an open TL with an OC (HELOC) that should read pays as agreed that reads "CONSUMER IS A DEADBEAT OF THE WORST SORT".

STEP one dispute entire TL with OC under FACTA?
Step Two (days later after CMRRR signed for by OC) dispute with the CRAs?

[Doctor Evil]

Flying
How bout "riffing" on how to FACTA dispute an open TL with an OC (HELOC) that should read pays as agreed that reads "CONSUMER IS A DEADBEAT OF THE WORST SORT".

STEP one dispute entire TL with OC under FACTA?
Step Two (days later after CMRRR signed for by OC) dispute with the CRAs?

wow, tradelines like that would certainly make credit reporting issues both educational and entertaining.

[Pablo]

Since I've done these disputes before it's nothing new to me...the fact of the matter is (what was NOT in the testimony) is that the company may get 1500 disputes or more a day (I mean the credit granter who is reporting) so basically (depending on the # of employees) there isn't that amount of time to investigate so throughly.  Plus remember they have 30 days to respond or it gets deleted so you have to respond to them quickly.  I agree with the testimony because I could do between 200--350 in 8 hours without phone calls, with phone calls I could do around 175---200....we did home phone disputes (creditor was home phone compnay) so with home phone there was no signature...and we did have access the the billing systems so we could go in there if need be (sometimes there were relevant info on the dispute).  A lot of times they were disputing it not their account but if someone knew all their personal info to open up the account (name, ssn, dob, etc) then we verified it & placed each dispute in a dispute status.

I also did the ones with a credit card company.  They never did have us access their billing system so we had no access to the signature and files.  However I would suggest if you have a big dispute like fraud, disputing charges, then you should contact the credit granter to get more info about the account because obviously if all the information matches with the creditor then it will be verified.