Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Lies about the “powerful 623 method” - do NOT dispute with creditors directly
A CreditFactors subscriber had been disputing with HSBC directly after reading about the “623 method” on the web and now posted that HSBC didn’t respond. It took a while to get the point across that the FCRA is mostly useless.
So I just searched Google for ”623 method FCRA” and there are a TON of posts raving about the powerful rights under the FCRA since the FACT Act amendment.
5 years after the 2003 FCRA amendment the “credit experts” still don’t have the slightest clue?
I’ve had readers get EXTREMELY upset when they sent me the “wonderful news about these powerful new rights” under section 623(a) and I told them that it’s a waste of time to dispute with creditors due to the lack of rights for consumers to sue for violations.
§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]
(c) Limitation on liability. Except as provided in section 621(c)(1)(B), sections 616 and 617 do not apply to any violation of--
(1) subsection (a) of this section, including any regulations issued thereunder;
Section 621 is “Administrative enforcement” and sections 616 and 617 are the sections giving consumers the right to sue.
Data furnishers have absolutely NO liability to consumers for failing to comply with section 623(a) requirements. And that explains why creditors couldn’t possibly care less about compliance.
5 years after the FACT Act, the MAJOR credit sites on the web are still distributing MISINFORMATION.
Of course that doesn’t surprise me at all:
1) The longer consumers frequent these sites because they’re NOT making any progress with their credit, the higher the advertising income for these sites.
2) The finance industry has plants all over the web to misinform consumers. I even saw a BANKING law blog article about section 623(a) as if it MEANT something.
ONLY regulators can enforce section 623 (a) compliance.
If you’ve been reading here for a while, you know that the regulators don’t enforce consumer protection laws.
The FACT Act is HORRIBLE legislation.
Only mail disputes to a creditor directly if you are also disputing with the CRAs and you are going to sue if you don’t get corrections. If your dispute is frivolous or not important, don’t bother.
Since the CRAs often don’t provide the actual disputes submitted by consumers to the creditors, you might get higher punitive damages or a larger settlement if you can prove that the creditor had your COMPLETE and FACTUAL dispute.
Sending letters to creditors because of your “rights” under FCRA section 623(a) is a complete waste of time, energy and money because you do NOT have ANY rights.
