AND furthermore,

[DUSTY]

Have a small in town CA, who listed a TL for $50. Followed all dispute procedures.
After disputing with CRA, they sent a letter "We have determine that your dispute with a Credit Reporting Agency is frivolous or irrelevant".

I replied and asked for the missing info that a CRA would have to have included, but latter found that the CA had changed the balance from $50 to -$0- but, still showing as a delinquent PAID account that is in dispute.

Haven't they messed up big time. That's malicious, no payments were made but, out of spite they're keeping a derogatory TL for no reason other than to harm me.

Any case law come to mind?

[jlynn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DUSTY but latter found that the CA had changed the balance from $50 to -$0- but, still showing as a delinquent PAID account that is in dispute

Is this the official dispute results from the CRA?

[spinn]

Would a FACTA dispute directly with the CA help?

[hannah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinn Would a FACTA dispute directly with the CA help?

Yes, based on the CRA outcome.

[Pale Rider]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DUSTY Have a small in town CA, who listed a TL for $50. Followed all dispute procedures. After disputing with CRA, they sent a letter "We have determine that your dispute with a Credit Reporting Agency is frivolous or irrelevant".?

Who sent that letter? CRA or CA?

[DUSTY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinn Would a FACTA dispute directly with the CA help?

Sorry not sure what that would be, explain please?

I paid a $50 deductable at the hospital, insurance paid rest.
Hospital sent to CA #1 to collect the $50 again and I disputed.
Hospital sent to CA #2 disputed. Never got any validation directly from them.
Hospital is on the line for not informing that the debt was in dispute.
Got on TL deleted by 2 CRA's told CA #2 on phone they'd have to delete the last because they'd been notified of deletion by 2 of the 3. The guy send hell no we'll get other put back on. They didn't but that's when I went to their office, that's part of what I think pissed them off too, they don't like not being anonymous although it was casual.

Disputed with the remaining CRA. CA #2 verified.
That's when the CA SENT THE FRIVILOUS LETTER??!!
Then I realized they now report it as a PAID DEROGATORY. That the $50 that was due had been paid sometime after delinquency!!! So I don't owe any money, but have the Derog. Shouldn't there be punitive damages available for such obvious maliciousness?

RB They pissed me off!

[Pale Rider]

It is not up to the CA to decide if the dispute is frivolous if the dispute went thru the CRA. They are required to investigate, then update or remove.

FACTA dispute is a dispute directly with the data furnisher under 623 (a) (8).

[Pale Rider]

If it was paid, why did the hospital send it to a CA?

I would focus on the billing department of the hospital, making them aware that sending a paid bill to a CA that is now acting in a harassing manner may come back to haunt the hospital.

[spinn]

I am not sure exactly the mechanics of it....but I believe you are able to dispute with the data furnisher (ca) directly using the FACTA.

I think what they will try to say is that the account was delinquent.....and was then paid for by the insurance company....which is BS.

The FCRA would be your avenue for punitive damages. Can you prove you paid the $50? That would go a long way towards proving the CA is willfully reporting an account that they know you have paid....you may have to send them some proof of payment but once you do they have no defense.

[DUSTY]

Thanx PR & Spinn,

No I don't have proof, it was paid in cash and they've admitted they don't have access to the cash receipts. Hospital policy is to collect the deductible at time of service. They did this to me before but, I had paid with a CC and had the proof.

It was always listed as a $50 debt until I disputed with the remaining CRA and then the 2nd CA simply changed it to a PAID DELINQUENT ACCOUNT.

I had sent the hospital a request under my state's law that requires them to respond when receiving a request as to whether they communicated a debt without including the fact that it was in dispute. They have to respond immediately and tell you who they did going back 90 days. The Hospital never responded to this specific request.
When the 2nd CA listed it on my CR and didn't show it disputed is when I did this. So one of them is liable in that instance.

Also I told the hospital directly that even though all the charges were paid, I disputed the charge for a biopsy since it was 100% more than a local lab charges, but I didn't use that specifically with the CA.


Since they pissed me off, I'll waive my rule #1 (get TL off) and go right to rule #2 sue them that don't comply!

[jlynn]

You didn't answer my question.

[DUSTY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlynn Is this the official dispute results from the CRA?

YES IT WAS, sorry didn't mean to not answer

I've read the friviolous FCRA provision, so I know it N/A. But that's why I think the CA said it's frivilous or irrelevant, because they changed it to paid AFTER I disputed it as being paid (at time of service). In fact no payment had been made since the time of service. It's a low down, dirty, lie that they did just to spite me and to deny me the opportunity to delete the remaining TL after 2 of the big three's investigation resulted in a delete. So after I disputed the TL they changed it to paid which made my dispute irrelevant (so to speak) and leave a PAID DEROGATORY with a ZERO balance. This is on my Experian, so I think it'd be easy to get it deleted but, the CA has pissed me off and I want to run with it, and Experian had their chance too!

Other than not going to their office in my frame of mind did you have a suggestion, or a similar case cite, maybe, huh please.

[spinn]

From what I understand...it is not up to the CA to classify a dispute as frivilous.

Otherwise....they could just claim them all as that and never really verify, while not denying it either.

[Enigma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinn From what I understand...it is not up to the CA to classify a dispute as frivilous. Otherwise....they could just claim them all as that and never really verify, while not denying it either.

They can under 623(a)(8)(F), but they have to follow guidelines and make certain disclosures to the consumer.

[DUSTY]

and I specifically asked for the info that was missing. They won't reply and I'm left to figure it out, but it's pretty clear their response to 'update' the TL was a malicious and willful act meant to harm me.

They never sent validation, had the Hospital do it directly.
It'll be interesting to find out if they 'updated' the TL in this manner at the direction of the Hospital, but it sounds more like CA BS than the Hospital's.

[roybean]

Enigma beat me to it...how many times did you dispute with the CRA before they determined it was frivolous?

[DUSTY]

the CRA never determined it was frivolous. They 'updated' with info from the CA changing it from a $50 balance to a $0 PAID DELINQUENCY.

No payment had been made. It was the CA that sent a frivolous letter.
I realized I was disputing a $50 debt that had been changed by the CA, when I disputed with the CRA to a $0 debt. So rationally,although not legally it was frivolous.

This should allow damages under one of the TORTS that the FCRA preempts, no?

RB does this border on a 'botch' maneuver? Or not even approach such a level of depravity?