I had my meeting with TU today, did NOT go anyway I expected. They are so ignorant. I sent them 27 pages of evidence that either they or the OC keeps re-aging 2 of my tradelines. I also asked them why 6 of my best positive older tradelines were deleted, and I asked about accounts not being marked in dispute.
First, we discussed disputes. She informed me that the disputes are supposed to come from the creditor, not the CRA. If the account is not showing in dispute, it is not TU's fault. Talk to the creditor. I expect3ed something similar.
Second, we discussed my 2 accounts being re-aged. She did inform me that this WAS a problem and she doesn't have an exact answer for me, that she is indeed looking into it. I told her that the re-aging of these accounts makes it look like a recent charge off/repo and not one that is really six years old. But, as a favor to me, she will go ahead and place both accounts back to the original closed date for me. Nothing about deleting or removing. When asked, she responded "We cannot just delete this account, I will CORECT it for you though"...how nice...
Third, was 6 positive account tradelines. These were about 6 years old. I asked why they were deleted, she informed me of the 7 year reporting period. These accounts were due to fall off anyway. I asked about the 6 1/2 year old Nissan repo they just re-aged, why didn't they just bump this one. "Well because it is showing a new closed date and our computer didn't know it was 6 1/2 years old. I asked if these accounts could be put back on and she said no. Besides, your Nissan account is due to fall off next year.
I don't know what to do here. Should I just send all this evidence to them without going through the Managers, and just send an ITS and see if someone lower on the totem pole would listen? I thought I would get some deletions out of it at least. I guess not.
What should I do?
Wow ..
I feel bad for you,TJ.
I just managed to get rid of the reage attempts on my trade lines with TU.
I thought I was doing real good.
I figure when I file the suite with my old Credit Union, they (the CU) will ask for the items to be removed.
In the meanwhile I'll accept and live with a true and honest report.
some of the supervisors with TU seem to be pretty good with their work. Others can be way off.
---
She is full crap. Positive accounts typically are reported for 10 years, not 7.
Gib
---
Positive accounts are supposed to stay on for 10 years! She does not know what she's talking about. :roll: I would for sure start quoting some of the FCRA to the next person you deal with. It's spelled out right in there. I'm sorry you got such little results. I think an ITS is in order at this point.
---
The problem is there is nothing that says a positive acct must stay on for 10 years. So that being the case, they can delete the accts and unfortunately, may not be able to get them back on.
---
This is not correct. She's lying.
TU's software CANNOT show disputes, but is REQUIRED to by federal law.
Two types of disputing must be recorded on a credit report.
1. Disputes with the CRA.
2. Disputes with the CA/OC (information furnisher)
Here's why: (FCRA)
She's playing you. She has to do this by LAW. She's not doing you any favors. She's admitting that TU (or the information furnisher) are in violation of federal law. Don't let her play you. You have two documented violations that can get you deletions and/or cash.
I can't speak to the positived deleted. But I do believe I read somewhere that positive TL's stay on 10 years.
They are intentionally trying to screw up your credit.
Get your papers/notes in order and get a lawyer.
---
I vote for ITS. I am very tired of them myself.
---
Heheh.... not to argue with my credit elders... but could you clarify please?
I realize I am new and could be mistaken. I'd like to be sure, if you care to humor me
Below is USC § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] Sections (, © and (d).
They all stand as distinct sections.
If © is dependent on ( for defintion, then would not (d) also be part of (? And the "and" in section ( means that the CRA must do two distinct and seperate things.
If not, where is the authority that makes CRA's mark an item in dispute?
Thanks.
provide either the consumer's statement or a clear and accurate codification or summary thereof.
(d) Notification of deletion of disputed information. Following any deletion of information which is found to be inaccurate or whose accuracy can no longer be verified or any notation as to disputed information, the consumer reporting agency shall, at the request of the consumer, furnish notification that the item has been deleted or the statement, codification or summary pursuant to subsection ( or © of this section to any person specifically designated by the consumer who has within two years prior thereto received a consumer report for employment purposes, or within six months prior thereto received a consumer report for any other purpose, which contained the deleted or disputed information
---
-Radi8
---
Ask the OC's if they are still reporting the accounts. If you can prove TU blocked them without cause, bingo. Willful and malicious.
Can come from either.
Refer her to 1681©(f) regarding disputes received by the CRA.
She is admitting that they know the tradeline is inaccurate. They are required to delete it! If they want to certify it as correct later and re-insert it, THAT they can do. But for now, it has to go.
My. how well-versed she is. 10 years for positive accounts. However, LKH is correct, there is no *requirement* to report the full 10 years.
What a joke. In any other business, such incompetence wouldn't be tolerated.
-Radi8
---
Can I get an to that?
---
1681©(f) Indication of dispute by consumer. If a consumer reporting agency is notified pursuant to section 623(a)(3) [§ 1681s-2] that information regarding a consumer who was furnished to the agency is disputed by the consumer, the agency shall indicate that fact in each consumer report that includes the disputed information.
Just to clarify, the above is stating that if a cra is notified by the data furnisher, that the consumer has disputed with the data furnisher, then the cra shall note that in each consumer report that includes the disputed info.
---
[quote]Heheh.... not to argue with my credit elders... but could you clarify please?
I realize I am new and could be mistaken. I'd like to be sure, if you care to humor me
Below is USC § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] Sections (, © and (d).
They all stand as distinct sections.
If © is dependent on ( for defintion, then would not (d) also be part of (? And the "and" in section ( means that the CRA must do two distinct and seperate things.
If not, where is the authority that makes CRA's mark an item in dispute?
Thanks.
provide either the consumer's statement or a clear and accurate codification or summary thereof.
(d) Notification of deletion of disputed information. Following any deletion of information which is found to be inaccurate or whose accuracy can no longer be verified or any notation as to disputed information, the consumer reporting agency shall, at the request of the consumer, furnish notification that the item has been deleted or the statement, codification or summary pursuant to subsection ( or © of this section to any person specifically designated by the consumer who has within two years prior thereto received a consumer report for employment purposes, or within six months prior thereto received a consumer report for any other purpose, which contained the deleted or disputed information
B says if a consumer is not satisfied with the results of a dispute, they may file a statement of dispute. That is the 100 word statement consumers are allowed to add to their report.
C says that if a consumer does indeed file a statement of dispute as in B, that statement will be included in each and every report produced from that point on.
What D says is that if an item of info can no longer be verified ( deleted) then the consumer may request that anyone who has received a report with the deleted item included on it, within the past 2 years, be sent an updated report showing that the item has been deleted.
---
LKH, my take on that section has been that if the CRA is informed that the information is disputed, they must mark it as such. Period.
However, 683(a)(3) would seem to restrict such notice to originating with the furnisher, not the consumer.
Therefore, is there actually a requirement for the CRA to mark accounts as "disputed" if the consumer only notifies the CRA, and not the furnisher?
I'm digging....thought I found it, but I see that I have not!
-Radi8
---
Hey, Fred, you guys are way above my head regarding this FCRA topic, but let me reassure you that you're always welcome to argue with your credit elders, LOL. That's what makes for interesting discussion! Plus, soon enough, you'll be somebody else's credit elder, and I hope you'll let them argue with you too...
Doc
---
CRAs marking as disputed has been disputed a lot lately, but we still have no clear direction.
Some have had great success using it as a weapon against the CRAs, but the best argument that has been presented is that the CRA must report accurate information. Some take that to mean that if you dispute the account with the CRA, they must mark it as disputed. I don't see it that way, but that's just me.
So here's a question... how long must the CRA mark it as disputed? forever?
Once again, Otto digs out the duct tape, puts a strip across his mouth, & hands the roll to the Capn.
---
The Capn takes the roll from Otto and does the same but offers the following comment:
"Reasonable Procedures"
I'm out.
---
I'm honestly ticked about the whole thing. I was up most of the night thinking about what I COULD'VE or SHOULD"VE said, but I wanted to see what their excuses are.
I am tempted to call her up today and just tell her I'm not satisfied with her answers about why the accounts weren't deleted after re-aging. She manually went into the account and changed the date. I never once told her that was the correct date, I merely informed her it was different than the very first one that was reported.
I haven't sent anything to the OC's yet (Sears and Nissan). That is going out tomorrow. The results I just got back were from the dispute requesting re-investigation of the closed dates.
I do have letters from the OC"s of the deleted files stating that they did not request deletion of these accounts and are resubmitting.
I was also curious about marking in dispute from the CRA. I'm not sure I feel the dispute should come from the CRA, if disputed through the CRA. I'm in agreement that the dispute should come from the furnisher. But how are you supposed to prove that the furnisher did actually notify TU that an account is in dispute? You'd have to contact the furnisher AFTER you have disputed the account with them the first time to ask them to prove they notified the CRA.
I do actually have one (unrelated) tradeline on my TU report that shows that the account is disputed by the consumer, but they inserted this account after I requested validation and supplied it.
SO, after what I've been told from TU, should I stay off the phone now and just follow through with an ITS? My violations would be:
§ 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681c]
© Running of reporting period.
(1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6)(2) of subsection (a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action.
2 times for each re-aging account? I feel it is a far fetched idea to include the dispute information as a violation. I could ask, but getting it is a separate issue. It could be used as more leverage for deletion.
Could someone help give me a coulple ideas for a good ITS letter with violations?
---
I am not sure about the 10yrs either... I remember reading somewhere that the MIN reporting age was 10yrs however, positives are reported INDEFINTELY unless you ask for them to be removed.
I currently have 2 11yr old positives that have not been removed. :wink:
It might also depend on the size of your credit file.
---
oops...thought I started a new thread... :oops: :oops:
---
Well, I really think TU screwed the pooch now! I got to looking at the positive tradelines that I have left. Supposedly they deleted those 6 because they were old and due to fall off...yeah right. I have 3 accounts still on my repoert that are 2 years older than the ones they deleted. 3 of the positive ones they deleted were opened in 1997. 97 + 7 = 2004 and 97 = 10 = 2007. So either way, they deleted them at least a year early!
I'm livid right now.
I want to call them in the morning, but I know I shouldn't. I want the re-aged accounts deleted and the deleted positives replaced!!
This just isn't my week...
---
Heh... well, I know that others have put in a lot more time than I have.
I was just commenting on the way I was reading it, and LKH has responded. And sure, I don't mind being questioned at all.
I've read your posts on CN, and a lot of the 'elders' work, so as to have a foundation. But I still have much to learn...
---
Wrangler, my opinion - and it's limited in scope as I know little - would be for you to get a lawyer. Sue in district court or perhaps Federal.
Use what violations you have to ram a settlement down their throats : All your legal fees, restoration of your positive TLs and complete deletion of all negative TLs.
Find a consumer lawyer familiar with CRAs and FCRA law.