arises close quote under section sixteen eighty one p of their print reporting act in two years ago this case decided the seminal case under the furniture liability provision one which this case proceeds nelson versus chase manhattan bank and held that liability arises that a condition a condition precedent to live militarizing is a dispute filed by a disgruntled consumer wi credit reporting agency subsequent case law has shown that liability arises approximately thirty days thereafter because it is because the furniture is of information is provided a thirty day window to there was an exam three years ago the supreme court decided t r w versus andrews and found that there was no discovery roll which of course is just precisely opposite of what the court below held and and  of course apply in this case either but they emphasized the point in this case and that is that accurate reporting is not where private rights of action lie if indeed liability arose  precedent of a dispute and the unintended consequences are so far reaching consequences which which frankly would which favor consumers but which are not supported by  and that is where to answer to come back to the amendments from three months ago there are additional rights that consumers have to dispute directly with furnish an alibi but there's no cause of action because they're under egg and that is the problem with the decision below statute your honor that's right one of the anomalies of this decision below in the bank's position here is that rather than having a discovery rule which we know tolls a special limitations this nelson holding how do they answer how can you have a cause of action before it accrues they can't answer that they haven't answered it the other basis of the bank's argument is the sixteen eighty one piece statutory judge noonan mentioned in nelson this is why congress says no you can't go to federal court you have to try to resolve it first it's an exhaustion requirement a very wise one because frankly this court i assumed or the district courts do not want to see a lot of these cases but when required to congress they will but the filtering mechanism has so many effects one of which is to make sure that only cases as clear as you're saying judge reinhart get to th courts it is a question and a member of the johnson decision from the fourth circuit two weeks ago points out this is not a question under this law it's not a question of accurate information that's for state district courts to deal with may be declared her judgment action  it please the court matthew hitler and but half of us bank or our answer to mr rubin's question is simple that the exceptions found in sixteen eighteen one p applies to this case nyc knowledge that in this particular case that operates to shorten the time period  which mr bishop had to present his question i what we all find out has given very odd your honor i agree that it is an anomaly it is an odd statutory interpretation that i am submitting to the court as an accurate one however the language of the statute is clear and in this particular case mr bishop knew in october of one thousand nine hundred nine every piece of information that he had before him pointed to says particularly sixteen eighty one i which provides that there is the method by which the consumer has to go through the credit reporting agencies before you can attempt to hold liable of furniture of information but this to nelson so it has to be some different kind of can't it has to be something other than just in this reporting of credit information it has to be some kind of i mean  to get your art argument it has to be something different we would submit that the language of sixteen eighty one p provides that there's information that has to be given to the consumer and the piece of information that had to be given to the consumer in this  context is the information that was reported on mr bishop's credit report in october of ninety nine that he admits that he received what in the misrepresentation the fact that there was the erroneous information the fact that the bank reported that he did not pay in a timely fashion a particular loan and based upon that his stature limitations began to run and i would point out that any kind of different system that exists ordinary misreporting of information that i mean you have to something different if you're going to toll the statute on this it must mean something different as with some other kind of strange misrepresentation that's the only misrepresentation that we're story when you go to the intermediary tell them about the problem have to get in touch with the bank and then when it doesn't work out then there's a good thing that there's no liability here between the bank and the for the purposes of this appeal your honor it's our position that you represent him and they really want you to do that i understand your honor the problem here is that there would be nothing to prevent mr bishop from waiting for one year in eleven months never filing a lawsuit and then simply requesting a reinvestigation through the credit reporting agency and that would essentially buy him another two years in that situation that cussed against the entire purpose bishop really hangs his hat on in this case was actually a letter from the branch manager to the bank rather than to mr bishop and it's a very odd letter in that respect and the bank has never been able to determine with any degree finality whether or not there was originally an heir when the lawsuit was filed after mr bishop submitted his reinvestigation request to the credit reporting agency there was never any determination as i said that there was inspect an error and once the lawsuit was filed investigation continued but then ultimately the motion to dismiss was granted by the court below so her only want to be able to d one way or the other there was an error and save a lot of her i understand the court's interest in this issue and so fortunately i don't have anything other than that to provide as to why we the bank was not able to that he went to the wrong and that's mr bishop's contention here on well that's what the branch manager stand i agree there's no contention that the branch managers letter says what it says however in this particular instance the other employees of the bank at the higher ups if you will have never been able to determine as i mentioned before that there wasn't found a bank in my money so i think it's going to be an admission by somebody in a position to know and then so you'll be in the prevention of having to develop the proof to rebut i understand you're out of well good luck and that was what happened it's not being reported anymore but not because of the bank was because equifax got sued and they realized they had to they had to do something the second question the judge reinhardt you asked about why can't they figure fourth circuit pointed out in johnson that even if they can't decide the answer they have to tell the credit bureau that was inconclusive so it isn't there's no requirement that there be some sort of investigation that reaches a certain