I strongly believe any Creditor/Debt Buyer be held to the same strict standard of proof that the consumer would need to provide when disputing any incorrect information. To correct a credit report documentation of all disputed information must be supplied by the consumer to 4 agencies. Those agencies then supply the consumers documentation of the dispute to the Furnisher of incorrect information on their credit report. After this procedure it turns into a waiting game to see if the creditor/debt buyer removes their incorrect information from the credit report. They do not do this lightly many stubornly refuse. It is a nighmare for the consumer and takes many months if not years to correct by that time the consumer if just feed up with this going nowhere process. This is the burden of proof that creditors/credit reporting agencies have placed on the consumers. Why would creditors/debt buyers who also report information on consumers credit reports, then demanding a higher burden of proof than that which they are willing to supply to any consumer. Arbitration as I have read, as it has been studied is totally a non functional action on the part of the consumer and gives rubber stamped results as predetermined by the creditors/debt buyers regardless of submitted consumer evidentiary material. These arbitration results in favor of the Creditor/Debt Buyer defy the laws of statistical mathmatics if this always is an impartial decision based on solely on the submitted documentation. The consumer needs a level playing field to know that there is a form of resolution available to them that functions for all parties involved in these types of disputes.
"Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration: A Roundtable Discussion" - August 5 and 6, 2009 #542930-00045
"Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration: A Roundtable Discussion" - August 5 and 6, 2009