| Comment Number: | 533527-00019 |
| Received: | 2/11/2008 4:19:02 PM |
| Organization: | private attorney |
| Commenter: | Michael Worsham |
| State: | MD |
| Agency: | Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: | Procedures to Enhance the Accuracy and Integrity of Information Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies Under Section 312 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
FTC: I am a consumer attorney that regularly represents people with credit reporting and debt collection problems. Regarding the FTC's task to identify the circumstances under which a furnisher must reinvestigate disputes about the accuracy of information contained in a consumer report based on a direct request from a consumer, the answer is the furnisher should always reinvestigate. The reason is that the credit bureaus (Trans Union, Equifax and Experian) regularly do not do a meaningful investigation or reinvestigation. That is because their business models treat disputes as a non-profit center. Their policy is to do a superficial and automated electronic transfer of a code that purportedly represents/summarizes the dispute to the furnisher, and they never do an actual reinvestigation by themselves (i.e. by the credit bureaus). An exception to requiring the furnishers to always investigate *might* be justified when the consumer disputes the same exact information within 30 days AND the furnisher actually did a bona fide investigation/reinvestigation of the consumer's dispute the first time (i.e. within the last 30 days). Even in that case, the furnisher should be required to provide the consumer with the furnishers's original investigation/reinvestigation results as a response to the second/followup dispute by the consumer. That will address scenarios where the consumer re-disputed simply because the first results got lost in the mail, and secondly, may force the person handling the re-dispute for the furnisher to look at what was initially provided as a response. If the furnisher's initial response was in fact deficient/superficial, then the person handling the re-dispute for the furnisher may be able to notice and catch that, and address the consumer's concern and frustration - i.e. that the the furnisher's initial investigation did not meet the standards, and needs to be re-done. To the extent possible, this rulemaking should address the well-established deficiencies with and failures of the national credit bureaus' failed investigation and reinvestigation policies. Thank you. Michael C. Worsham