Undeliverable verification address

[Yogurt]

My credit report disputes finally came back as verified so I get the usual "if you wish to know further you can contact the company resonsible for this item on your report by writing to company X at address Y."

Of course I am going to contact them and I did. For two of the items I followed up on, the letter is being returned by USPS back to me as undeliverable. (The internet confirmed it before I even have the letter in hand). I have taken the liberty to confirm I have written to the correct address that the credit bureaus gave me.

Is this confirmation that the big three could not have verified the item properly? I'm concerned that I might need to find the proper address for the companies but... shouldn't the big three have done this during verification?

I'm really hoping for an easy delete. What would you do?

[30daylate]

The credit bureaus don't actually mail a letter to verify with the creditor. They do everything electronically so that may be why. You should send a escalation to the bureau and say that you aren't able to contact the creditor. You can't really break out of their mold until you have a situation that they don't have a system for.

[Lian]

If you had used the direct dispute process for disputing the information, the new rules implementing the direct dispute process address this issue. No such updated rules govern the dispute process through the CRAs, as no rules have been promulgated that apply to that process.

The implementing rules for the direct dispute process, effective 7/1/2010, and published at 16 CFR 660.4, contain a section 660.4(c) that states:

"Direct Dispute Address. A furnisher is required to investigate a direct dispute only if the consumer submits a dispute notice to the furnisher at:

(1) The address of a furnisher provided by a furnisher and set forth on a consumer report relating to the consumer;

(2) An address clearly and conspicuously specified by the furnisher for submitting direct disputes that is provided to the consumer in writing or electronically (if the consumer has agreed to the electronic delivery of information from the furnisher); or

(3)Any business address of the furnisher if the furnisher has not so specified and provided an address for submitting direct disputes under paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this section."

Paragraphs (1) and (2) apparently apply to your situation, and thus if a direct dispute had been sent to such address, it is presumptively considered to have been disputed, requiring them to complete an investigation within the 30-day dispute period set forth in section 660.4(3). You would thus have basis for requiring its deletion based upon failure to verify within the prescribed period.

Duty to provide an accurate address in your CR follows from FCRA 623(b), which requires the update of information in a consumer's credit file that is inaccurate or incomplete.

You might consider sending the furnisher a direct dispute at an address specified under section 660.4(c), and then asserting non-verification based on any failure to provide the results of that direct dispute to you within the required period.

[Yogurt]

Okay... Just to clarify:

I did send a direct dispute to the CA after each of the big 3 verified it to be accurate in late September 2011.

The direct dispute letter has come back to me as undeliverable. The big three now have to delete it from my report because they provided innacurate information. It was their duty to provide the proper address for disputes.

YAY!?!?

[Lian]

Not quite that simple. You still have some maneuvering to do to make it come about.

The CRAs are NOT involved in the direct dispute process until such time as the furnisher who received the direct dispute reports any necessary correction or deletion back to the CRA. FCRA 623(a)(8)(E)(iv). So you stand in limbo with correction of your CR, and must offer them some basis for requesting deletion. There is no specific statutory guidance that compels the CRA involvement or sanctions unilateral CRA deletion based on results of a direct dispute. That burden is on the furnisher of the information. You need to persuade the CRA that they are somehow compelled, but I don't see such a compulsion within the words of the statute or rules. You may have a fight with them.

The statue states, at FCRA 623(a)(8)(E), that the furnisher, upon receipt of a notice of direct dispute, must conduct a reasonable investigation, report the results back to you within the same period for disputes made via a CRA, and additionally provide the CRAs with any correction of the disputed information necessary to make the information accurate.

However, in my opinion, here is the rub. In disputes made through a CRA, there is express reference to failure to verify the disputed information, and specific reference to deletion of the disputed information if unverified. See FCRA 623(b).
FCRA 623(a)(8) makes no such reference to lack of verification. It only covers their obligation to report any necessary corrections to the CRAs. Section 623(b) relates only to disputes made through a CRA.

So where you stand, in my opinion, is that the furnisher did not comply with their statutory obligation under FCRA 623(a)(8)(E). You can assert, based on the implementing rules as stated in 16 CFR 660.4(c), that they are legally considered to have received the notice of direct dispute due to your sending it to an address set forth in section 660.4(c), and thus were required to complete their investigation and report back to you within the dispute time period. They did not do that. However, they also did not provide you with a report stating that the information was inaccurate. You would have to argue that lack of a report is the same as their holding that the information was inaccurate. Logical, but not necessarily so.

Neither FCRA 623(a)(8) nor 16 CFR 660.4 expressly state what happens if the furnisher does not comply with their statutory obligations, and since the CRA is not involved, they have no obligation to conduct their own "reinvestigation" in the manner required for disputes made through them.

So, to make a long story short, you are, in my opinion, on kinda new legal grounds. I would assert that the same logic that is expressed in section 623(b) (i.e., deletion as a result of non-verification) would similarly apply to direct disputes, and serve as basis, due to their lack of compliance with section 623(a)(8)(E), for the CRA to delete the disputed information.

Sorry it is so complex, but that is my interpretation of the relevant statutes. Maybe you can come up with a creative approach!