You betcha! however you might wanna make sure and wait for someone else here to confirm this as I am not very confident. Better yet, why don't you email the Lending Tree guys because they can answer you better...

Don't let TU discourage you, this is their standard M.O. Just keep disputing the same items over and over again, maybe changing your tactics/story-line a little in each letter. Throw in some frivolous info about your accountant or your Aunt Edna, get angry, lead them to believe that you are a regular (clueless) consumer. They may send two, three, or even four "blow-off" letters back to you before they do or re-do your investigation. It's much cheaper for them to respond this way because they know that 95% of the time most consumers will get frustrated and eventually give up. (Even most of the CreditNetters on this board have given up because an account came back as "previously verified"). It may take over a half dozen letters, but as long as the OC is not re-reporting, chances are highly in your favor that the item will eventually get deleted...

Would you give the same advice if you got a letter from them saying they consider your request frivolous? This was in response to my request for the procedure used to verify an inaccurate public record...

It doesn't matter whether they consider a request for procedure to be frivolous or not. They have no choice, as the FCRA says it is your right to request this, and, I believe it even says that on the reports they send. I would send them another letter advising them their 15 days to comply with your procedural request has passed, and they can now delete the acct in question as they are in violation of the FCRA...

Thanks for the advice, LKH. Do you have an opinion on why TU is able to play the innocent bystander in this area of public record reporting?.

A credit card company pays the CRA for including their customer's payment history in the CRA database..

In the case of public records, the CRA is paying a company to go out and gather this information for their database so they can sell this information to credit grantors and others..

So, at least in the case of public records, the CRA is actually the 'furnisher' of tax lien, bankruptcy, judgment information..

Shouldn't that make a difference if it were to come to a lawsuit? They are not merely reporting (incorrect)information that has been supplied to them. They are both supplying AND reporting incorrect information THEY have purchased...

It really depends on where you want to take this.. you can send another letter with the LAST BEFORE LAWSUIT IS FILED at the top of the letter and send copies of your preivous letters and highlighting the area of the FCRA where it specifically states they must provide the furnisher of the information and if they do not, then they are in violation. Either remove it or send the furnishers who verified the information...

Then your next step would be to file the lawsuit in small claims $20 (that's how mujch it is where I'm at), then go after them.. that's how I would approach it...

Uh oh.....

Guys how can you tell if Transunion really verified with the creditor? It appears the law requires them to only furnish the company name, address, and phone number of the verifier. No name, or date and time they verified..

All TU would have to do is list the company names and phone numbers and they meet the requirements. Can you guys suggest another angle ?