Topic: E-oscar system and how CRA disputes work?

[debtcat]

Does anyone know if information furnishers (companies)  actually perform investigations in response to CRA disputes?  Is it pretty much automated where they do nothing and no person actually handles the dispute? 

Thanks

[KFMAN]

Does anyone know if information furnishers (companies)  actually perform investigations in response to CRA disputes?  Is it pretty much automated where they do nothing and no person actually handles the dispute? 

Thanks

Accuracy is what matters, unless you can prove they didn't investigate.

[debtcat]

Hypothetically.....you dispute the account as not yours.  (maybe it is you learn after the fact) but the information furnisher updates the incorrect balance is this privately actionable?

[kevinmanheim]

Hypothetically.....you dispute the account as not yours.  (maybe it is you learn after the fact) but the information furnisher updates the incorrect balance is this privately actionable?

Sure, but you would need to prove it.

The problem being that CRAs don't like to help consumers prove FCRA cases.

How are you going to prove that the OC sent a certain amount to the CRA?

Your hard copy CRA report might be accepted as evidence, but I wouldn't count on it.

Look around on PACER. Not a lot of people win FCRA lawsuits. 

[KFMAN]

Sure, but you would need to prove it.

The problem being that CRAs don't like to help consumers prove FCRA cases.

How are you going to prove that the OC sent a certain amount to the CRA?

Your hard copy CRA report might be accepted as evidence, but I wouldn't count on it.

Look around on PACER. Not a lot of people win FCRA lawsuits.

Why not?

[Fighting Irish]

First, because they're difficult to prove.

Second, because some get settled; neither the CRAs nor the creditors want their violations on the record.

Third, because if the offending TLs are corrected or deleted, what happened to your damages?

[howucantoo]

There is/was a case in my district against CRAs and furnisher.

Plaintiff happens to be a lawyer.

Case was filed almost a year and half ago in state court, but OC and the 3 amigos removed to district (that's how I found it, while searching for removal to federal ).

In this case plaintiff had submitted credit reports (redacted ) showing discrepancies which were entered as exhibits.

Plaintiff had also, unsuccessfully disputed  derogatory TL numerous times with OC and CRAs (via CMRR).

Funny thing is these communications/ disputes were written on law firm's letterhead  ,but  plaintiff still had to sue !

Case was still going back and forth in court, last I checked was a few weeks ago.

My intake was/is CR can be submitted as proof for willful non-compliance, probably and most definitely it's up to the judge to decide, but, unless submitted one will never know.

[CleaningUp]

The credit report can only be used as evidence as to what the CRAs are publishing.  Nothing else because it is all hearsay.

[KFMAN]

The credit report can only be used as evidence as to what the CRAs are publishing.  Nothing else because it is all hearsay.

So will that prove FCRA violations?

[CleaningUp]

In part.  You need the other half...you know, the one that is right.

But has been said before, the FCRA is not a strict liability statute.  The CAN unring the bell.  All they have to do is correct the entry, and your case is in the tank.

[debtcat]

I didn't think reporting incorrect information was privately actionable? 

[kevinmanheim]

Why not?

Like FI wrote -- they are difficult to prove, and you won't get any assistance from the CRA or OC.

As soon as you sue, you can bet that the bad information will vanish from your reports. It would then be your job to prove it was there, and that you were damaged as a result of it being there.

FCRA cases involving impermissible inquiries are easier to prove. If the OC received your report without a PP, or the CRA supplied it to someone without a PP.  The OC or CRA can't unring that bell.

[howucantoo]

FCRA cases involving impermissible inquiries are easier to prove. If the OC received your report without a PP, or the CRA supplied it to someone without a PP.  The OC or CRA can't unring that bell.

Unfortunately CRAs do unring the bell, there is an OC (who has no business pulling credit ) does it every month but this month's pull magically disappears with the next .
Unless monitored every day it's impossible to catch them in action.

[KFMAN]

In part.  You need the other half...you know, the one that is right.

But has been said before, the FCRA is not a strict liability statute.  The CAN unring the bell.  All they have to do is correct the entry, and your case is in the tank.

What if they have been reporting inaccurate information for over a year?

[KFMAN]

Like FI wrote -- they are difficult to prove, and you won't get any assistance from the CRA or OC.

As soon as you sue, you can bet that the bad information will vanish from your reports. It would then be your job to prove it was there, and that you were damaged as a result of it being there.

FCRA cases involving impermissible inquiries are easier to prove. If the OC received your report without a PP, or the CRA supplied it to someone without a PP.  The OC or CRA can't unring that bell.

Do you have to be damaged by it?