623 investigation

[wdsman1]

Just in case I do not get 2 OC accounts deleted I was wondering what people have used for reasons in regards to an OC investigation. I don't want to have the OC question me about a fraud account...saying that the account is "not mine". Can I just say that the account came back validated, please investigate how you validated the account? Or if on CRA deletes the account and other CRA's do not. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Lian]

Several questions folded into one....

As for a direct dispute under FCRA 623(a)(8), you always want to do that instead of first disputing through a CRA. When you file a first dispute through either process (i.e., through the CRA or directly with the creditor), a second dispute through either process can be summarily dismissed as duplicative, and thus "frilolous or irrelevant" under the provisions of 16 CFR 660.4(f)(ii). Do one or the other, preferably a direct dispute. You dont want to alert them to any earlier verification in another dispute.

In regard to what is needed to support a direct dispute, you must establish with adequate documentation sufficient information to substantiate the basis for the dispute. It is kinda like saying the intitial burden is with the consumer to at least establish some factual basis for the dispute. Just saying it is not yours probably wont cut it. My suggestion for supporting documentation in any "account not mine" assertion is at least including the copy of a police report, which is tantamount to your sworn statement under penalty of criminal prosecution for any knowingly false information reported therein. The police report (which FCRA 603(q) calls an "identity theft report") need not prove identity theft, just assert it as a probable cause of infromation being included in your CR that you never authorized. The important language, similar to what is used in FCRA 605B, is the statement that "the information is not information relating to any transaction by the consumer."
Regarding method of verification, a request for MOV is not a new dispute. It is a request under FCRA 611(a)(7) for disclosure of the procedures used in their investigation of the dispute they have already verified. They have 15 days to respond to that MOV request. They dont consider it to be a "dispute."

[chane]

Lian, are you sure that you are able to direct dispute the OC (623(a)(8)) before you dispute it with the CRA? I was under the impression that you have to dispute with the CRA before you are legally eligible to dispute directly with the OC.

[Lian]

Yes, I am sure.
The final rules implementing the direct dispute process became effective as of 7/1/2010, and have been publshed at 16 CFR 660.4. The legislative intent of FCRA 623(a)(8) was to offer an alternative to the dispute process through the CRAs (FCRA 611(a)). The consumer is free to pick one or the other.

Yes, the preliminary hearings on the rules prior to their final publication did include comments and recommendations by numerous parties in the creditor industry that a direct dispute should be required to be preceded by an initial dispute through the CRAs. The final rules rejected this recommendation. They can be found at 31484 FedReg/Vol 74, No. 125, July 1, 2009.
The qualifications to file a direct dispute are set forth in 16 CFR 660.4(a), and have no requirement for any initial dispute through a CRA.

In fact, a prior dispute through a CRA can kill a direct dispute, enabling the creditor/debt collector to dismiss it as duplicative, and thus "frivolous or irrelevant." 16 CFR 660.4(f)(ii).

[chane]

Ok, I have updated the wording on this page:

http://aaacreditguide.com/forums/beg...-creditor.html

Let me know if there are any other edits I should make to it. Thanks!