Comparison: Legal Reporting vs Compliant Reporting

Reporting contradictions: what actually happens?

EOscar is a web-based, METRO 2 COMPLIANT, automated system that acts as the credit reporting industry’s Standard for a Automated Dispute Resolution System and despite common misconceptions ALL data furnishers (aka Data Reporters) also have EOscar AVAILABLE for use. That is, despite being significantly different, each data reporting furnisher of consumer information AND each accepting of consumer information consumer reporting agency (aka repository) has its own individualized access to e-Oscar!

When a complaint is filed to a bureau from a consumer, that repository typically transmits that complaint information along with images (can be simply 1 image or more, but NOT always any at all actually) of it or relevant to it via utilization of this same aforementioned e-Oscar system.  If the CRA does forward a complaint, the receiving data reporting furnisher will access their individualized e-Oscar to retrieve any of which is transmitted, if anything at all! The exception here is when or if a CRA elects on its own recourse to ‘updates” the complaint information based on the content forwarded to the repository by the consumer of the complaint itself. Here, if happens the ACDV is NOT typically executed so the actual data reporting furnisher (creditor if you will) might not even be aware of said “update” that might be a removal from reporting as a whole item or a removal from reporting particular aspects of an item reporting or modification of or within the reported information thereby leading to a realistic and NON-INFRACTION-ious circumstance where the DF and CRAs do NOT have exacting and each compliantly reported data. if THIS is the circumstance for a creditor or DC that is sued based on such “apparent” mis-reportings, the lawsuit surely FAILS and it ends up being a hugely frustrating event for both the CRO and consumer client of which elected on the suit pathway for what THET MIS-UNDERSTOOD incorrectly as being an “error” or infraction. THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON, so be on YOUR P’s & Q’s when it comes to suggesting that what you THINK you see is what you THINK is “WRONG”.. Might be the only thing WRONG is YOU!

OK back to the process that occurs following a CRA receiving a consumer complaint, be it a dispute or be it a compliance-challenge! 

Assuming the DF received a consumer complaint transmission from an originating repository (CRA) and assuming the DF checks and ensures what they reported is in fact what is in their records and was intended to be reported (that is , the data of complaint is verified and validated as accurate according to the DF own records<<<===  note this is NOT the same thing necessarily as the reported information of complaint actually being factually confirmed and certified as accurate and complete although certainly CAN BE). Ok, so IF the originating consumer agency receiving the complaint receives a notice from the data reporting furnisher that the complaint info was verified and or validated as accurate to their records then that is it. The CRA will notify the complaining consumer and is done. BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT, what if the data reporting furnisher fails to reply and or fails to return an adequate timely notice of verification and validation of the information related to the consumer’s complaint then  it is THAT specific originating consumer reporting agency (aka CRA), not the data reporting furnisher, that is responsible for the mandated automated forwarding of a carbon copy of  any of the modification(s) and or removal(s) from reporting of the consumer complaint’s information without regard if or not the consumer complaint actually was sent to DF to begin with. THAT IS, ANY modification or removal auto-triggers the acting repository to send exacting carbon copies to ANY OTHER CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES WITH WHICH THE DATA FURNISHER’s registration is ACTIVE in e-Oscar.. This is IMPORTANT because say a creditor elected to STOP REPORTING to CRA “A1” in April and yet a “dispute” is received in MAY following and that dispute resulted in altered reportable data. But NOW that creditor reports to a different CRA or not at all, but NOT actively registered to report with CRA A1 any longer.

In this case, in theory the data furnisher alterations do NOT have to be sent to that CRA A1 of which the DF no longer reports to.   The CURRENTLY registered credit reporting agencies still with the data furnisher as a registered reporter of consumer data WILL, however, EACH HAVE to be sent an automated carbon copy of the alteration(s), if any.  

Many mis-understand this and will think that a creditor or collector is in violation when in fact they might not be at all although clearly there MIGHT be hints of deliberate unethical practices here (imo at least).

Another misconception is that EVERY TIME a data reporter replies to a repository OR sends the CRA a response that it must be a full and complete account information transmission… This is NOT TRUE!   Fact is, ONLY ONCE (1x) monthly MAXIMUM would a data reporting furnisher typically be required to report the actual fully compliant data and that is during the normal reporting schedule for that data reporting furnisher to a given consumer reporting agency via use of the ACDV.

[**AUD, the Automated Universal Data Process, are used for transmissions through e-Oscar concerning interim maintenance requests, report updates, and or to delete accounts]

That is , in actual responses to a consumer complaint the data reporting furnisher is not always required to update the actual and complete historical account information (2020 CRRG 14-2, 14-3) but rather only the dates and other necessarily adjusted account fields. In this regard, if the communication to the CRA from a DF is related to a dispute or consumer complaint, it is very much a realistic possibility that the response is not timed similarly as is the normal monthly requisite update to the registered CRAs of the DF. That is, the rules for compliant reporting are actually intended NOT for CONSTANT and PERMANENT COMPLIANT REPORTING by a given data reporter but rather its intended solely for the REGULAR MONTHLY UPDATES to PREVIOSLY-REPORTED accounts.  

So yet again, an appearance of what seems to be a WRONGLY reported information on credit profile MIGHT or MIGHT not be COMPLIANT and or MIGHT or MIGHT not actually be IMPROPERLY reported even if BOTH INCORRECTLY and NON-COMPLIANTLY reported. So to THINK you can SUE necessarily because a disputed ERROR is NOT adequately corrected  might or might not have ability to hold water in a suit! Obviously there is plenty of wiggle room here , hence the often miscommunicated requirements.

The ONLY REAL TRUTH indisputable is that the alterations, if any, made by whomever made, when discovered the data furnisher MUST ALSO UPDATE their INTERNAL RECORDS to avoid re-reporting incorrect and or non-compliant information.  In THIS circumstance, in THEORY at least, a disputed item that is modified and updated will now be legally verified and validated data also deemed to be also confirmed data , which is a requisite condition to certify data as accurate! OBVIOUSLY this does NOT ALWAYS OCCUR, but how do we identify items that were or were not adequately processed, updated, and the previously non-confirmable verification and validation now being confirmed and certifiable?

Not via a dispute. even if you have a GREAT dispute!

ODDLY there is conflictions even within the compliance standards. In one area of compliant reporting the CRA making a modification can do so without sending complaint to the actual DF yet in other areas of compliant reporting its hinted that there is a requisite communication, namely CRRG  states early in it that the CRRG Metro 2 data-filled field formatted reporting standards comply with FCRA, FCBA, and all applicable reporting regulations including those at state levels yet in other areas about CRRG its hinted not so necessarily ONLY actually requiring that all information on a dispute response (aka a response to a consumer complaint) be such that it is with NO ILLOGICAL CONDITIONS. That is, the dispute response itself MUST be COMPLETE and LOGICAL and supposedly per CRRG the e-Oscar system is built such to prevent illogical responses. YET WE HAVE ALL SEEN ILLOGICAL PLENTY, or at least have so via MONITORING SERVICE REPORTS! 

****AUD’s strangely can NOT be utilized legally to update a consumer’s personally identifiable information (the PIs if you will)!

CHANGES made via AUD by the DF are updated to all currently affiliated CRAs the DF has actually registered, NOT the ACDV!  DFs requesting or agreeing that a consumer complaint information in question needs modified and or removed, that DF will use the e-Oscar system aforementioned to complete an AUD form that is then routed back to the originating consumer reporting agency from which it initially received notice of the consumer’s complaint. In contradiction (possibly) to other statements in the CRRG , the DF uses the e-Oscar system’s web-based interactive interface to create the AUD record which is then diverted to one or more consumer reporting agencies, based on the reporting relationships indicated by the DF within e-Oscar and based on the subscriber codes specified within the AUD record above mentioned! It is the ORIGINATING CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCY of the complaint to the DF that will (or supposed to be at least) that returns notice with e-Oscar back to the DF of the Outcome of each of their submitted AUD’s , if any!

So here is what I get out of all this..

If the CREDITOR reporting makes a change using the AUD process, e-Oscar is supposedly designed to automatically send the update(s)

 to any and ALL the CRAs that the DF currently has designated as an affiliated CRA  AT THE TIME OF AUD SUBMITTING!  The DF appears to have somewhat of a CHOICE actually it seems to or not to update an account on each of the affiliated CRAs because the DF may feel the update is not needed at said CRAs not sent the informational updates.   AGAIN, this to me seems like an over convoluted bullshit way to give the credit mafia a way “OUT” near always especially is disputing WHAT is reported as opposed to the reporting processes and deviations of standards.

What you SEE might NOT be actually what IS THERE, much like a mirage in a hot desert!

Adequate attacking for credit report enhancements is MORE than simply arguing what APPEARS to be right and wrong and WORDS (terminology) MATTERS.

There is a DIFFERENCE in verify (verification), Valid (Validation/ Validity), Confirm (confirming/confirmation) and certify (certifying/certification).

There is also a potential difference in LEGAL reporting and COMPLIANT reporting sometimes, NOT always!  

Just because something is LEGALLY reported does NOT necessarily mean it is COMPLIANTLY reported and not always does a legally reported account have to be completely COMPLIANT at ALL TIMES. So be careful!

Enjoy!

That there is another issue. If your discovered issue/error/complaint is related to information from a monitoring service, how liable is the credit mafia themselves? Really? Could it be that the df and CRAs involved communicate with each other appropriately and compliantly monthly as required yet somehow a credit report have displayed hints that the reported information is not to standards? So if electing to file suit OR respond to one you WANT a REAL DIRECT BUREAU REPORT not a report from ANY service nor any 3-in-1 report (no actual REAL CRA report is 3-in-1 so you know).  The ONLY “REAL” reports are via those mailed out by bureaus or found in the online dispute area aka BACKDOOR REPORT areas. ALL others are not necessarily legit, so be aware.   

I can go on and on and on and you should be decidedly desiring to learn more and more consistently , if not you are doing injury to your own potential success if not the consumer clients you supposedly are hoping to assist. 

You need and should want to learn about BRR’s and what roles it has with claims of fraud and or identity theft, be it legit or not!