WHY IS EQUIFAX BREAKING THE LAW?!

Have you called the collection agency directly?

send a letter to equifax demanding to see the method of verification. By law they HAVE to provide it to you. Also send the CA a intent to sue letter and include equifax in the suit...take it all the way and sue them both. You have overproven that the CA is ignoring you, and equifax knows darn well it is NOT up to YOU to prove you do not owe, but for the CA to prove you do owe! Believe me..they will change their tune real fast wen faced with a lawsuit.

Your fight is not with Equifax. It is with the debt collector.

Here's the thing, it is not legal for a debt collector to refuse to respond to a DV request, while still verifying the debt to the credit bureaus. Reporting/verifying an existing report on your credit reports is collection activity, and once they get your DV letter, they are not allowed to continue any collection activity until they provide you with the validation you requested.

I would send a certified letter to the debt collector. It would say something like this:

Quote:

I would say the fight is with both. Equifax is supposed to conduct a proper investigation. See my blog post Creditors Gone Wild which includes the relevant statutes.

I'm glad you filed a complaint against Equifax with the FTC against both the CA and Equifax. I would send the letter suggested above to both of them. You should also reference the relevant statutes that I have included in the blog post.

The CRA has 30 days to respond, which can be extended to 45 - the CA is under no such constraints as mentioned above.

I have to agree with ChrysHenderson, it would seem to me the OP's fight is with both.

She needs to really slam the CA for ignoring repeated DV requests and continuing to report the account with the CBR after they have been DV'd. At the very least, the CA should report the account as having been disputed. And the argument that Equifax is only reporting what they are told is complete garbage. The OP really needs to dispute it with Equifax even harder. Equifax should have to go to the creditor and get proof the debt is valid or remove it from the OP's CBR. If Equifax continues to decline to investigate and does not remove the account, she needs to Sue them.

As a matter of fact, I think at this point the only option the OP has is to get an attorney and sue both Equifax and the CA. As stated, it's not the OP's job to prove she doesn't owe the debt, it's the CA's job to prove she does.

How can you prove something - anything - doesn't exist? The burden if proof is upon the one claiming that it is your debt. Since they claim it, they must prove it.

As an example, here is a lawsuit by the FTC against a debt collector. Note especially the 2nd & 3rd Count.

Equifax is rather stubborn when it comes to compliance with the law. For example, all 3 bureaus were sued by the FTC in 2000 and fined $2.5 million for not giving debtors access and assistance by phone. In 2003, the FTC again had to sue Equifax (the other 2 had complied) and fined them a further $250,000 in a settlement (called a Consent Decree) because they basically ignored the order. So when you send your dispute to Equifax, cc: the FTC and reference the relevant statutes as I have advised. This is important because there is a stipulation that allows them to ignore disputes that they believe are frivolous.

See the FTC page "How to Dispute Credit Report Errors" for more details.

Quote:

Ok, so basically it sounds like everyone is saying I should dispute it with both the collection agency as well as Equifax? Thanks for the advice because at this point it's really getting to be out of hand. I just don't understand why Equifax wants me to prove something that I never agreed to? The name of the collection agency is Alternative Recovery Management. They are a bunch of slime balls, as most other collection agencies are.

So, to sum things up, I guess my next step is to send the above letter to the collection agency and then go from there. I will also do some further research also as suggested. I filed a complaint on both the agency and Equifax and received a confirmation number indicating that my complaint is currently under investigation, which I know basically means "take a number". I sent the collection agency a DV letter in response to a letter and notation indicated on my credit report. My credit resport does indicate "disputed by consumer".

It sounds like EQ is off the hook and your issue is with the CA. They cannot verify the account w/out validating. You may have to look into suing.

EQ may be stubborn about following the law, but the fact is that they have broken no law here. Which makes me wonder why you guys keep telling this person to go after them? They can only report what they are given to report. They have no way of knowing if they have been given factual info or not--and nothing in this case has shown them that the entry is in error! Unless you can prove to EQ that the entry is in error, they are not under any legal obligation to remove it. And showing them a DV letter that has gone unanswered doesnt prove anything--in fact, how are they to know that youre telling the truth? Suppose you sent a DV letter and the CA sent you validation--how are they to know that you havent gotten validation simply because you said you didnt? I am not calling you a liar, but you need to understand why EQ is only obligated to handle an internal dispute and not something outside of their involvement.

OK, maybe I'm confused here. If the OP were to open a dispute with Equifax, doesn't EQ then have to obtain validation from the creditor that is reporting the item on the CBR? This would not be some CA sending a letter, or however they report it to EQ, saying "Yes, we say the debtor owes us this money." It would have to be some sort of hard evidence like a contract or statements. The same as they would have to provide in court if they sued the debtor, and the debtor requested validation during discovery.

Maybe I'm confused.

Beside, the old argument that EQ is just reporting what they are told just doesn't hold water with me. Hasn't the National Enquirer, and other tabloids, been sued and lost for "just reporting what they were told", and it was later proved to be false? If a consumer is stating something they are reporting is false and EQ does nothing to validate the accuracy of this item, then they should be sued for libel. Because they are making money off of information they sell regarding consumers, they should be forced to exercise due diligence in making sure this information is correct when a consumer questions it.

No Ron, the CB's dont use validation. They use VERIFICATION.

When you disptue with the CB, they send a form to the creditor, basically saying "this guy is disputing this account, please verify the identifying info and get back to us". All the CA needs to do at that point is respond with "yes, thats the info we have" and the CB has followed the law on their end. THAT is why the CB can only report what they are given to report. Often times, the CA doesnt even check info, they simply mark off the same thing as on the credit report entry and call it good--and it isnt. But the CB didnt do anything wrong there.

Validation means they prove the debt is real, that it is yours, and that you owe what they claim you owe. Verification is basically name, date of birth, and SSN....which you can get anywhere today. There's a huge difference, and thats where youre going wrong on this one.

Guest, I know the difference between VALIDATION and VERIFICATION.

If a debtor has stated to the CBR an account is incorrect, then the CBR should not just rely on VERIFICATION from the CA as proof. They should be forced to have the CA VALIDATE the debt. That would mean the CA must provide hard evidence the debt they are reporting to the CBR is correct. If the CA cannot do this, then the CBR should remove the debt.

Period.

I'm not sure if the CBR's are currently required, by law, to do this; however, if they aren't, they should be. They are making money by selling information regarding a debtor. If the debtor disputes an entry, then they should be legally required to VALIDATE this entry. Not rely on a CA saying "yes, we say the debtor owes us the money." That's just not acceptable. If they don't remove this information that is not VALIDATED, then a CBR would then open themselves up to being sued for libel, as they are selling information, in print, regarding a debtor they were notified as not being correct; however, they did nothing to VALIDATE the accuracy of said debt.

In a perfect world, the debtor should be able to deal directly with the CA/creditor in getting incorrect information removed/corrected on their CBR's. But that isn't always easy to do, though. We all know CA's never make mistakes or, God forbid, lie about a debt, now don't we?

That's when the credit bureau's should be required to investigate and VALIDATE a disputed item on a debtor's CBR.

Again, the old argument that the CBR's just report what they are told is still garbage, in my opinion. Once they are notified by a debtor an entry is incorrect, they should then VALIDATE the debt. And don't try to argue they don't have the manpower or time to do this, or that it's not their problem if a CA reports something incorrectly. If they are making money off of this information, then they should have a responsibility to make sure it is accurate.

Ron, the guest post was mine. It wasnt meant to insult or anything.

For starters, we dont live in that perfect world. So, as far as the law right now, the CB did NOT do anything wrong. Is it ideal? Nope, of course not. But the problem becomes one of "what can we do NOW, now in a perfect world". This is wht I said the CB did not break the law and this person's fight is not with the CB. SHOULD it be different? Yes, I agree, but until it is, thats the plain fact of it.

Instead of focusing on what should be different, there are plenty of things to focus on here to work in our favor, at least while things are still this way. For instance, the FTC recently increased the penalties from $2500 to $3500 per violation for FCRA violations. And this is most definitely an FCRA issue--they are reporting a debt to the credit bureau that they cannot substantiate. Rather than charging off against the CB when the current laws dont support such a charge, I would instead focus on going after the people that the law supports me going after. Once I get it cleared up, I would then pursue pushing for changes in the laws. But the first goal should be to fix this issue. And whether you accept it or not, they ARE only reporting what was given to them. They DID uphold their end of the law by forwarding the dispute on to the creditor, and they DID get a response that it is verified. Under law they not only cant change that themselves without further proof, but they are obligated TO report it as provided!

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, skydivr7673.

Just because there are no current laws requiring CBR's to validate disputed debts, doesn't mean they shouldn't.

Seriously, if news organizations can be sued for libel for publishing stories they were notified, or well aware of, were not accurate, the same rule should apply to CBR's. Dan Rather lost his job at CBS for reporting a story on our former President, and presenting it as 100% accurate, that was not true and distorted. Because CBR's make money from selling our reports, they should also be required to validate the accuracy of any debts they have been notified as being incorrect.

Or face libel lawsuits.

I remember watching one of those documentaries we talked about here in the forums, a year or so ago. I think it was "In Debt We Trust." Where one of the gentlemen interviewed stated that CBR's keep a list of credit reports of "important" people they specially manage and go out of their way to make sure are accurate. The CBR's feel these people are "important" because they have the clout and power to "cause trouble" for CBR's, so they make doubly sure the reports are clean and accurate.

It should be that way for all Americans, not just a select few.

Until we stand up and say to the CBR's we're not going to take it any longer, nothing will ever get done to change the current system. If that means making noise to the CBR's and to our law-makers, then that's what we need to do.

Identity theft is a huge problem. These statutes are in place in order to protect the consumer against unlawful allegations of debts of which they are not responsible. If they can just say "it's real" and leave it at that, then we as consumers have no protections under the law and we can be forced to pay any crooked debt buyer that comes along saying we owe them money.

That's as bad as someone making allegations against you as an anonymous poster on a public newsgroup or forum. It's one thing when your mistakes cause you problems in your life, but when your life is affected by what amounts to libel (and a bad credit mark can get you denied for employment or a home loan, etc.) you need to have defensive measures in place. And those defenses are the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the FDCPA.

In this situation, the CA is ignoring the DV altogether. They are not even attempting a perfunctory mailing of a statement.

And I have read court case after court case, appeal after appeal, cases where consumers counter-sued the CA and won because the consumer was able to provide evidence of continued attempts at validation which were ignored.

And, in a "perfect world" there would be no money - it's just so primitive, being nothing more than glorified shells, rocks, or beads. But, to say that to expect Justice to be served is living in a non-existent "perfect world" is begging the issue.

The confusion is the haziness of the wording within the statutes. But the court's consistent interpretation is that the CRA must conduct a "reasonable investigation". Especially in the case of junk debt buyers, some of these CAs are trying to collect on debts that are legally noncollectable, either time barred or are not or were not the accused consumer's debt at all.
"http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/ManageDebt/SleazyNewDebtCollectorTactics.aspx"
"http://www.newyorkconsumerlitigation.com/cavalry-portfolio-services-punished-for-trying-to-collect-from-the-wrong-people/"

The only thing we have to protect ourselves is the dispute law, which states clearly that the CRA must provide a "reasonable investigation" as I made clear on my blog post, which was originally written in response to a post about a CRA ignoring a dispute.

I quote from the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003:

From National Law Center: "http://www.nclc.org/initiatives/test_and_comm/content/FRBReinvestigationQ.pdf"
Report to the Federal Reserve, Footnote 11, page 3:

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, and quite regularly. I'm saying it is NOT SUPPOSED to happen. The FACT Act and the FDCPA are self-policing policies - they require the injured citizen to stand up for their rights and grant them a financial incentive of $1000 for FDCPA violations, plus possible court costs and attorney fees. It is willful noncompliance, plain and simple.

Wow! Very well put, ChrysHenderson.

Thanks everyone for the advice. So, it seems like the consensus here is that I need to go after the collection agency again?

I would start there.. but if your attorney wants to include Equifax than that's up to the attorney to decide what law Equifax has broken.

File a suit in small claims court against the original creditor ( the people allegedly you had the original lease with ) for the maximum amount allowed under law for your state, as well as the collection agency and Equifax. They will probably settle out of court.

just found a zombie debt on my equifax.not on other reports already contacted ftc for ca but now going after equifax with ftc and possible lawsuit from my research equifax does this for years we all need to attack them when they do this i will not rest until not only i am cleared but something gets done to change the fraud

In order to take any action against the credit report companies, you must first dispute the debt on said credit report. Also, I have seen before than disputing online, you sometimes agree without knowing, it is is small print in the terms and conditions, that says if they mess up, you cannot sue them.....

You should either dispute by phone or in writing by mail. If the account is pass the 7.6 year reporting period it should then be removed. If it gets removed, you cannot sue them.

I have a similar story but its hell when you owe someone,But it is super hell when dont owe someone and equifax and collection agency says you do.I have been trying for 3 yrs now to get my stuff straightened out.The other 2 transunion and I forget the other have taken it off my record.Equifax not.I have proof that I paid and I have faxed collection agency and all kinds of stuff.I finally and went and saw a lawyer and she told me that I couldnt do anything until they sued me for the money.Then and only then i could burn them a new one.Meanwhile the land I was going to buy back 3 yrs got sold cause of this I couldnt purchase it and I thought it was over and now they have it back on me and I have found some land just a few weeks ago,now my credit is screwd up again.I know this probably dont make any sense but i am really pissed off.I hope that you get your issues resolved but they should be a way that all this crap and equifax should be accountable for ruining someones credit and especially if you never owed in the first place.I also have a law suit pending all this,I cosigned for a car and I had to pay the car off,well the person I cosigned with got the insurance check and I want to supena the insurance on who endorsed the check,and get my money back.That is where all this stuff I going thru strated.I will never cosign for anybody again.If I ever get my credit back.