[Textoy]

For Your Information: November 29, 2007
Agencies to Issue Proposed Rules and Guidelines that Address Accuracy and Integrity of Consumer Report Information and Rules to Allow Direct Disputes
The Federal Trade Commission and the federal financial regulatory agencies (the Agencies) have approved proposed regulations and guidelines to help ensure the accuracy and integrity of information provided to consumer reporting agencies and to allow consumers to directly dispute inaccuracies with financial institutions and other entities that furnish information to consumer reporting agencies. This information is widely used to determine eligibility for credit, employment, insurance, and rental housing.

The proposal would implement section 312 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, which amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

As required by Section 312, the Agencies are proposing guidelines regarding the accuracy and integrity of the information that entities furnish to a consumer reporting agency. The Agencies also are proposing regulations that would require each entity that furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency to establish reasonable policies and procedures for implementing the guidelines.

The proposed rules would allow consumers to dispute inaccuracies about certain information reflected on their consumer reports directly with the furnishers of that information.

The proposed rules and guidelines are attached. The proposal will be published soon in the Federal Register and the comment period will end 60 days thereafter. The Commission vote authorizing the publication of the proposed rules and guidelines and Federal Register notice was 5-0.

Copies of the document mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s Web site at Federal Trade Commission - Home, Federal Trade Commission - Home, and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

There is a link to the 191 page pdf file on the FTC website from the word copies above

[hannah]

Your link is not working but here's the pdf of the proposed rules attached.

[apexcrsrvc]

Originally Posted by Textoy

For Your Information: November 29, 2007
Agencies to Issue Proposed Rules and Guidelines that Address Accuracy and Integrity of Consumer Report Information and Rules to Allow Direct Disputes
The Federal Trade Commission and the federal financial regulatory agencies (the Agencies) have approved proposed regulations and guidelines to help ensure the accuracy and integrity of information provided to consumer reporting agencies and to allow consumers to directly dispute inaccuracies with financial institutions and other entities that furnish information to consumer reporting agencies. This information is widely used to determine eligibility for credit, employment, insurance, and rental housing.

The proposal would implement section 312 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, which amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

As required by Section 312, the Agencies are proposing guidelines regarding the accuracy and integrity of the information that entities furnish to a consumer reporting agency. The Agencies also are proposing regulations that would require each entity that furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency to establish reasonable policies and procedures for implementing the guidelines.

The proposed rules would allow consumers to dispute inaccuracies about certain information reflected on their consumer reports directly with the furnishers of that information.

The proposed rules and guidelines are attached. The proposal will be published soon in the Federal Register and the comment period will end 60 days thereafter. The Commission vote authorizing the publication of the proposed rules and guidelines and Federal Register notice was 5-0.

Copies of the document mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s Web site at Federal Trade Commission - Home, Federal Trade Commission - Home, and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

There is a link to the 191 page pdf file on the FTC website from the word copies above

I'm not trying to be a wiseguy but, can't we already do this under the FACTA amendments to the FCRA. This is what is called requesting "verification" isn't it.

Again, not trying to be a smart-ass but, does this new implementation as to "disputing" provide a cause of action or something of that nature?

I'm too lazy to read the entire pdf . . .

[Textoy]

I am new at the credit repair stuff so I could say something amiss so please don't flame me to hard if I get it wrong.

From what I have observed, the wording of section 809 of the FDCPA really only addresses timely DVs. Many use it to DV if they first observe a derog TL on their CRs but the wording of section 809 appears to address a timely DV occurance.

FACTA updated FCRA section 623 to allow the consumer to dispute a TL directly with the furnisher of the TL (OC/CA/JDB) as a verification (investigation for an OC as I understand this mess). However, the wording of 623(a)(8)(C) was such that the 623(a)(8)(D) through (G) (the dispute requirements) can only be implemented under the rules/guidelines identified in 623(a)(8)(A). The problem is, those rules/guidelines have not been implemented. Implementing those rules/guidelines is the purpose of what I oringinally posted. While the courts may see differently, it would seem, to this newbie at least, as though untimely DVs may have to be performed under FCRA 623 in the not so distant future. An from what I read, the Agencies in charge are leaning towards just implementing guidelines rather than regulations. I take that to mean there will be very little legal meat for consumers to use in disputes. Additionally, they are proposing that dispute letters that are either submitted by a credit repair agency OR a consumer uses a dispute form provided by a credit repair agency does not have to be responded to under 623.

[apexcrsrvc]

Originally Posted by Textoy

I am new at the credit repair stuff so I could say something amiss so please don't flame me to hard if I get it wrong.

From what I have observed, the wording of section 809 of the FDCPA really only addresses timely DVs. Many use it to DV if they first observe a derog TL on their CRs but the wording of section 809 appears to address a timely DV occurance.

FACTA updated FCRA section 623 to allow the consumer to dispute a TL directly with the furnisher of the TL (OC/CA/JDB) as a verification (investigation for an OC as I understand this mess). However, the wording of 623(a)(8)(C) was such that the 623(a)(8)(D) through (G) (the dispute requirements) can only be implemented under the rules/guidelines identified in 623(a)(8)(A). The problem is, those rules/guidelines have not been implemented. Implementing those rules/guidelines is the purpose of what I oringinally posted. While the courts may see differently, it would seem, to this newbie at least, as though untimely DVs may have to be performed under FCRA 623 in the not so distant future. An from what I read, the Agencies in charge are leaning towards just implementing guidelines rather than regulations. I take that to mean there will be very little legal meat for consumers to use in disputes. Additionally, they are proposing that dispute letters that are either submitted by a credit repair agency OR a consumer uses a dispute form provided by a credit repair agency does not have to be responded to under 623.

AHHHHH . . . I'LL TELL YOU ONE THING NEWBIE (as flames shoot out my ears)!

Seriously, pretty astute observation. I've never taken the time to delineate between whether these were regs or guidelines.

That being said, all of this is still just feel good measures isn't it. I mean, until a private cause of action is established it is without teeth. I may be wrong but, it seems much akin to HIPPA in that respect.

As for the language pertaining to CSO, we've had that with respect to the CRA's. I don't like it because it also applies to attorneys and any counsel. I think Congress is overreaching here insofar as that language is a flagrant denial of the right to counsel. Of course, this would probably be viewed in the civil arena and the courts would say there is no such right.

Still, its just another step towards institutionalizing these private companies.

I do thank you for trying to clear that up for me and not making me read it, lol. I'm lazy . . .

[Textoy]

The other part is that they are implementing this as a request for feedback from all venues (OC/CA/Public) on what they are proposing. This is the outcome from the Fed Register request in early 2006 for input that resulted in all those opinon letters posted on the FTC site. One of those responses was from that Consumer Law Attorney in Newport News Va. which gets reffered to frequently.

[apexcrsrvc]

Originally Posted by Textoy

The other part is that they are implementing this as a request for feedback from all venues (OC/CA/Public) on what they are proposing. This is the outcome from the Fed Register request in early 2006 for input that resulted in all those opinon letters posted on the FTC site. One of those responses was from that Consumer Law Attorney in Newport News Va. which gets reffered to frequently.

Len Bennett of CLA, PLLC. Nice guy and good counsel in an area that needs some trails blazed in terms of damages/awards (FCRA).