Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports

Background Information : I hired a credit repair service to act on my behalf for legitimate inaccuracies that exist on my credit report. All 3 agencies were sent correspondence from this third-party credit repair company. I was subscribed for 2 months at a prices of XXXX XXXX  month, for a total of approximate {$300.00}. The third-party credit repair company set the expectation for when to expect a response from the CRA pursuant to FCRA rules. 

After not having received a response in the 2nd month, at which point I had already paid the 2nd months subscription fee, I called the agencies to confirm whether they received any dispute correspondence for the accounts on my credit report. The agencies told me they did not receive them. It was only by chance that I mentioned to an agent with TransUnion that I used a 3rd party repair company to assist me with the dispute process. She told me the agencies all-together jettison disputes they determine to have come from a third party, they do not scan or record having received any documents they determine are of this sort, and they neither inform the 3rd party agency nor the consumer that they have made the determine to all-together jettison the dispute. All 3 agencies all-together jettisoned my disputes for this exact reason.

The Complaint : This manner of operating is in clear violation of FCRA rules. Under section 611a3A, the agency is required to provide a Notice of Determination : Upon making [ ANY ] determination in accordance with subparagraph ( A ) that a dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, a consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer of such determination not later than 5 business days after making such determination, by mail or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by any other means available to the agency. '' This section of the FCRA states that the agency is empowered to make a determination about whether to pursue a dispute, but also requires the agency to furnish notice to the consumer, nevertheless, if a dispute is dismissed. The agency is, indeed, also making a determination about whether to pursue a dispute in the case of receiving said disputes from third-parties on behalf of the consumer. This rule aught then extend to this scenario as well in order to insure that consumers are aware, in the same way, that their dispute was all-together jettisoned and for what reason. Consumers of third-party credit repair companies can not reasonably be expected to know that the agency can all-together jettison a dispute executed by a third-party on the consumers behalf and to NOT let consumers know is in breach of the very language of this section of the US Code.

This needlessly creates a caveat emptor scenario that completely leaves the consumer limbo, paying for third-party services that, only after spending a few hundred dollars or more, will consumers later find out that an attempt to seek assistance to correct information on their consumer credit report is rendered a moot effort by the very agency doing the reporting. It's a problem and it is relatively easy to solve by just informing the consumer ( as should be the case under the aforementioned section of the FCRA ). Inform the consumer that a request to open a dispute has been all-together jettisoned on the basis of the third party acting on the consumers behalf, in spite of the fact that the consumer empowered said party to act precisely in the manner that the third-party is acting, and with the presumption that the third-party is not acting illegally ( i.e., wrongfully claiming identity theft ).

I have since become aware that apparently credit repair agencies are a growing problem to the credit reporting companies. That is beside the point. If the agency has any legal grounds to deny someone's the right to dispute information on their credit report for any reason, they are obligated, by law, to let the consumer, of all people, know that reason.