REAL Purpose of Disputes

matiesse · 10-12-2007, 07:20 PM

I've looked at the PDF of the 2003 Bennett testimony to the house Fin Svcs Cmte and I've read the 2007 version. I think I've attached the June 2007 version. I've read the CDIA testimony as well.

Based on this, it looks like:

1. The dispute process is 100% automated.
2. Our disputes are reduced to 2-digit e-OSCAR codes that are transmitted from the CRA's to their subscribers.
- 30.5% of disputes are classified as 'Not his/hers'
- 21.2% dispute present/previous Account History
- 16.8% Claims Inaccurate Information. No specifics from the consumer provided.
- 8.8% dispute amounts
- 7.0% Claims account closed by consumer
3. There is no real verification.
4. There are no supporting documents sent to subscribers.
5. There are no real investigations.
6. Investigations for 'VIP's' are handled different from the 'unwashed masses'.

The list goes on.

So, it seems to me that our purpose for filing disputes is because the law says that's what we have to do if we want relief from inaccurate or incomplete reports.

More importantly, given the contents of this testimony, it seems that the real purpose of disputes is to create violations of the laws by the CRA's and their subscribers so that we can go after them and sue them to force them to address our issues as originally required by the law.

I would appreciate the thoughts of the more knowledgeable members on this so that we can be more effective in getting our credit issues resolved.

TIA

M

Pale Rider · 10-12-2007, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matiesse

So, it seems to me that our purpose for filing disputes is because the law says that's what we have to do if we want relief from inaccurate or incomplete reports.

More importantly, given the contents of this testimony, it seems that the real purpose of disputes is to create violations of the laws by the CRA's and their subscribers so that we can go after them and sue them to force them to address our issues as originally required by the law.

Well, I wouldn't put it quite like that. The purpose of the dispute process is to avoid someone going straight to court, rather than trying to correct the mistakes first. The court system could not handle the cases if consumers saw a mistake and ran down to file, given the estimated 80% error rate.

The process was actually well thought out, to give the CRA's and the data furnisher a chance to correct their mistakes. The FACTA amendments goes a step further in allowing disputes directly with the furnisher. The system then allows for damages if the process is not followed.

matiesse · 10-12-2007, 10:29 PM

Well, I wouldn't put it quite like that. The purpose of the dispute process is to avoid someone going straight to court, rather than trying to correct the mistakes first. The court system could not handle the cases if consumers saw a mistake and ran down to file, given the estimated 80% error rate.

The process was actually well thought out, to give the CRA's and the data furnisher a chance to correct their mistakes. The FACTA amendments goes a step further in allowing disputes directly with the furnisher.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

The system then allows for damages if the process is not followed.

I agree with what you say Pale. The point that I'm trying to make is that the system doesn't work as designed and the only way to do that is to force the issue with ITS letters or actual lawsuits because the law is not followed.

rubyruby27 · 10-13-2007, 12:01 AM

I concur, that is why you do it in writing and cmrr.

If the system worked for all and just not those who will fight we wouldn't have to do everything in writing 3 times over and cmrr.

neil5623 · 10-13-2007, 10:12 AM

Problem then is the CRAs respond after the first run, "Sorry, we already allegedly verified this one."

doertel@comcast.net · 10-13-2007, 03:40 PM

I send letters to all 3 cra's disputing 6 items.
Now my phone is ringing off the hook with CA's demanding payment. I've never heard of these CA's before. Two of the items where encluded in a BK 3 yrs ago. It appears I made things worse. What happened?

doertel@comcast.net · 10-13-2007, 03:43 PM

I'm needing to fix my credit, I've tried doing it myself and I seem to make it worse.
Anyone know of a good company out there that can do it fast for a reasonable fee
(under $500.00)

hannah · 10-13-2007, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doertel@comcast.net

I send letters to all 3 cra's disputing 6 items.
Now my phone is ringing off the hook with CA's demanding payment. I've never heard of these CA's before. Two of the items where encluded in a BK 3 yrs ago. It appears I made things worse. What happened?

Did anything on your report change? The CRA's, for a fee, when there is a change, report this to CA's and JDB's. It also happens when you get some new credit that is reported. Send DV letter with the "inconvenient to call" clause included and get rid of the phone harassment.

hannah · 10-13-2007, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doertel@comcast.net

I'm needing to fix my credit, I've tried doing it myself and I seem to make it worse.
Anyone know of a good company out there that can do it fast for a reasonable fee
(under $500.00)

No need to pay someone to do it. They cannot do anything more than you can do. I take it that you've already sent disputes to the CRA's so wait for your results. Then post that here and we can help you help yourself.

jlynn · 10-14-2007, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannah

Did anything on your report change? The CRA's, for a fee, when there is a change, report this to CA's and JDB's. It also happens when you get some new credit that is reported. Send DV letter with the "inconvenient to call" clause included and get rid of the phone harassment.

Quote:

Two of the items where encluded in a BK 3 yrs ago. It appears I made things worse. What happened?

Inconv letter to the 1 not included in BK. I would send a letter to the two CAs that are trying to collect on the BK account and remind them they were indeed included, and it is a violation of the permanent stay to attempt to collect.

Gib · 10-14-2007, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlynn

Inconv letter to the 1 not included in BK. I would send a letter to the two CAs that are trying to collect on the BK account and remind them they were indeed included, and it is a violation of the permanent stay to attempt to collect.

It could also be argued they are misrepresenting the legal status of a debt by trying to collect on an IIB debt.

matiesse · 10-21-2007, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannah

No need to pay someone to do it. They cannot do anything more than you can do. I take it that you've already sent disputes to the CRA's so wait for your results. Then post that here and we can help you help yourself.

I agree with Hannah. When I had some intense personal issues that required all of my time I hired Le@#*&%on. They were ineffectual and I knew more than they did. I let them go after 2 months.

Also the CRA's are wise to most CRO's and will stall in a heartbeat if they suspect that you are using one.

Save your money and do it your self.