Credit Hawk

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Credit Hawk

  • Rank
  1. We should establish a "Key Contact" section for this site so users can "fast track" their disputes to the principal players. Members could post contact info gained through each of their unique and individual experiences. For instance, through my recent dispute with Household Bank, I now have the names and telephone numbers for two of their paralegals and one attorney. Think of the database we could construct leveraging the size and scale of the member base and visitors to this site. Just a thought.
  2. HH Bank was reporting a 60-day late payment on a closed finance account my wife established with Seaman's Furniture (NY) back in 1999. Disputed w/ Equifax twice but HH continued to verify. Sent HH a letter on March 23 stating that I was filing suit in district court in fifteen (15) days unless they deleted the derogs or provided ME proof of the late payment. Note: My wife had copies of all statements and cancelled checks. Wouldn’t you know it, she received a phone call on April 2 from a paralegal stating that their lawyer was reviewing her payment history. Received another phone call today stating that the trade lines would be removed. Bottom line: It's been my experience that deadlines (15 days in this case) are a very effective means in getting results fast. On all my letters I state in bold face type "Notice: You have x number of days to respond or I am filing suit". More often than not, the letter receives a quick response via phone or expedited mail. This tactic has been mentioned on this site before but well worth repeating.
  3. I dealt with Midland last year with regard to a Discover credit card account. Follow all the proper procedures for debt validation. Midland will NOT respond, trust me. Wait the alloted time and then dispute the accounts w/ the credit bureaus. State your case clearly and enclose copies of all letters and green cards sent to Midland. That's what worked for me, thanks to this board. Midland go bye-bye.
  4. jlindseyjr is right. Let the SOL run its course.
  5. HEADLINE: Court Backs Full Checks On Credit Complaints A federal appeals court yesterday ruled that a credit card company must diligently investigate consumer complaints about inaccurate credit files before concluding they have no merit. Three judges on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond unanimously found that MBNA, the giant Delaware credit card issuer, failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of a consumer's records because it conducted only a cursory review of its files. The case involved Linda Johnson, owner of a hair salon in Newport News, who was unable to get a favorable mortgage rate after she found that her husband's overdue credit card account at MBNA had marred her clean credit file. The decision goes to the heart of a continuing controversy about the growing number of errors on credit reports -- and how earnestly lenders have to check their files to correct mistakes. For many years, creditors have only verified that the information on their records matched the data at the three national credit bureaus; typically, they do not check original documents to make sure the information was correct in the first place. "This is a huge win for consumers," said Evans Hendricks, editor of Privacy Times. Not only is it the first ruling by a federal appeals court on this issue, he said, but it involves the nation's second-largest credit card issuer. MBNA spokesman Jim Donahue said the company had no comment, as it had not yet had a chance to review the decision. In the Johnson dispute, the credit bureau forwarded her complaint to the card issuer for investigation. MBNA replied that it had every reason to believe that Johnson had co-signed for the account in 1987, even though its papers do not go back that far. Johnson sued MBNA and won a jury verdict of $90,000 last year. The company appealed, saying its duties to investigate and report consumer complaints "are very limited -- and intentionally so under the scheme enacted by Congress." The appeals court panel, disagreed, saying: "The plain meaning of 'investigation' clearly requires some degree of careful inquiry by creditors. . . . It would make little sense to conclude that, in creating a system intended to give consumers a means to dispute -- and ultimately correct -- inaccurate information on their credit reports, Congress used the term 'investigation' to include superficial, unreasonable inquiries by creditors."
  6. Have your wife write a letter stating that she wants her portion of any tax refund owed, and does not want it offset and posted towards the delinquent amount. Staple the letter to all tax returns and mail. It works in NY State.
  7. Thanks for all your responses. As a follow up to Nolo, I was never served any papers, nor have ever received any court documents in the mail, by courier, etc. That's why I think this collector is full of it. This alleged debt is from 1995. I don't think they could even obtain a judgement today in NY since it's been eight years. Correct? Also, wouldn't a judgment have shown up on my credit report by now? [Edit by Credit Hawk on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 @ 09:19 AM]
  8. Question: Does a collection agency have to notify someone when they obtain a judgement against them? What is the procedure for being served? This collection agency is trying to get me to pay $500 for an alleged debt from a university I graduated from and last attended in 1995. The letter states "our client has entered a judgment against you". Does that mean I have a judgment against me or is this just a scare tactic? Could they have obtained one and kept in their pocket for 6 years? No judgment has ever shown up on any of my credit reports. Are they bluffing, and if so, should I call their bluff and tell them I will use the SOL defense for old debts which in NY is 6 years. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. EX: 745 EQ: 756 TU: 754 [Edit by Credit Hawk on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 @ 07:31 AM]
  9. I agree, it doesn't sound like a debt pertaining to a student loan. That's why I brought up the SOL.
  10. Wouldn't this debt be considered "out-of-statute" since it is more than ten years old?
  11. Equifax is great at deleting inquiries. I haven't had ANY luck with Experian and Trans Union though.
  12. Stay tough with NCO and they usually back off.
  13. I too have dealt with WaMu regarding impermissable inquiries. They are without a doubt the WORST company I have ever dealt with regard to customer service. [Edit by Credit Hawk on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 @ 09:41 AM]
  14. I absolutely agree. Also, I question if the court has a full grasp of the FCRA or its intent to protect consumers. It appears that it doesn't more often than not.