herauntsis

Members
  • Content Count

    789
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by herauntsis

  1. You're a firefighter Doc -- one way or another, your whole life is fixing other people's screwed up messes.
  2. We've been wrangling around about this public record thing for a while, but that's the first time I heard that. Where did you hear it? I don't think that it's true, but wouldn't it be nice?
  3. Here is a link to Spears v Brennan: http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/archive/03260101.ewn.html
  4. Here is a quote from Cushman v Trans Union: "The "grave responsibilit[y]" imposed by § 1681i(a) must consist of something more than merely parroting information received from other sources." Here is a quote from the FCRA: § 610. Conditions and form of disclosure to consumers [15 U.S.C. § 1681h] © Trained personnel. Any consumer reporting agency shall provide trained personnel to explain to the consumer any information furnished to him pursuant to section 609 [§ 1681g] of this title. Looks like Experian is falling down on the job of providing trained personnel. Geeze, it seems that they just get worse every day. I can't believe the utter crap that comes out of the mouths of the CSRs at the CRAs sometimes. What's a poor consumer to do?
  5. Not necessarily -- this is not my field of expertise, but I am pretty sure I have seen someone post (Lady'nRed, perhaps) that making a payment does not necessarily start the SOL over again. I really don't know that much about this, but I am answering you so that you don't panic. Someone who knows what they are talking about and can help you with specifics will be along any time now.
  6. Oh, no -- that was my favorite part!
  7. Maybe you are right -- that letter has always confused me, because it seems to say one thing and then seems to say something altogether different. So you are saying that if it's already been reported, they have to mark it as in dispute, but if the consumer disputes it with the CRA, the CA cannot verify it with the CRA because that would constitute collection activity. OMG, I just read it again for the hundredth time, and it clearly says that the answer to the question, "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?" is NO. They cannot continue to report until they provide validation. Thanks Wolf -- I have read that damned thing over and over and I just now got it. Well, that is good news for those of us dealing with collection agencies who ignore requests for validation and continue to verify with the CRAs. The 1-2 punch has some teeth in it after all!
  8. You guys are confusing me -- in my business, VOD stands for Verification of Deposit. Every time I see that, I go, "What the hell are they doing sending a VOD to a CA?" I couldn't figure it out until just now when the light dawned -- Validation of Debt. I am so used to seeing it as just plain DV that I was at a total loss. Duh!
  9. § 813. Civil liability [15 USC 1692k] (a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this title with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of -- (1) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure; (2) (A) in the case of any action by an individual, such additional damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding $1,000; or
  10. I was looking at it more along the lines of building a case for violations against the CA. We know from the FTC opinion letters that if they have already reported it, they are required to mark it as in dispute with the CRA. I would think that verifying the debt with the CRA could be considered as collection activity, because they are, in effect, re-reporting the account. They are verifying the account as true while not having validated it to the consumer. I think that it kind of pulls the teeth from the power of debt validation if they are allowed to verify without validating. I wonder if the FTC would issue an opinion letter to any old Joe Consumer? Maybe I could write to them and get it directly from the horse's mouth about what the horse's a$$ is allowed to do.
  11. herauntsis

    Advice

    If the lien has not been placed yet, why wouldn't it work for him to grant deed the house over to her? Especially if he is in jail -- what if he dies in there and she is not on title? Then she'll have to go through probate and all the crap that entails.
  12. The guy's probably a pervert of some sort -- haven't you ever noticed that the people who seem overly interested in your morals have none of their own?
  13. There is a hot and heavy thread going on over at CB right now on this very subject. The theory is that since the CRAs provide coding for a soft inquiry when it is for an account review, the OC is maliciously poisoning your credit by pulling a hard instead of the soft AR.
  14. Sometimes if you ask them nicely, they will delete things that are within a couple months of being obsolete. Except Experian of course -- they write back and say "We don't understand what you are disputing. If you tell us specifically why the information blah blah blah . . ." Although it wouldn't hurt to try it with Experian too -- I think it depends on who opens the letter.
  15. Short of actually mailing them a 2 X 4, I think you did a damn fine job!
  16. Sorry CB... did I offend in some way.. I sure didnt mean too! Not sure what the delivery room and stirrup pants have in common? Any woman would get the connection between the delivery room and "stirrupy things." lol
  17. See Henson v CSC -- this case covers a similar kind of circumstance involving public records. http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?yr=93&num=3441&Submit1=Request+Opinion This doesn't fit your circumstances exactly, but it does have to do with the responsibility of the CRA to further investigate when someone disputes a public record.
  18. I hear that Experian has been pulling this a lot lately. They are so full of s**t! § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (a) Reinvestigations of disputed information. (2) Prompt notice of dispute to furnisher of information. Provision of other information from consumer. The consumer reporting agency shall promptly provide to the person who provided the information in dispute all relevant information regarding the dispute that is received by the agency from the consumer after the period referred to in subparagraph (A) and before the end of the period referred to in paragraph (1)(A). (4) Consideration of consumer information. In conducting any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) with respect to disputed information in the file of any consumer, the consumer reporting agency shall review and consider all relevant information submitted by the consumer in the period described in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such disputed information.
  19. It's not actually certified email -- you email it to them, then they print it and mail it for you. What a great idea -- no more going to the post office ans waiting in line.
  20. Holy hell -- I think Experian gives an IQ test to prospective employees, and if they fail, they're hired. Try this on them -- I think they are in violation of this section of the FCRA: © Trained personnel. Any consumer reporting agency shall provide trained personnel to explain to the consumer any information furnished to him pursuant to section 609 [§ 1681g] of this title. On the other hand, I can't find anything that says they have to actually train the people who open the mail and do the disputes, so maybe this won't work after all. Is there a section that requires a consumer to provide trained personnel to explain to the CRA the information provided to the CRA in a dispute letter or a request for a procedural description?
  21. According to the FTC, on closed end accounts such as car loans and mortgages, creditors do not have PP to pull your credit to review the accounts, since the account terms cannot be changed. I hope someone sued their asses!
  22. Sorry -- there are lots of posts from lots of different people and my old brain can't remember all the details of who did what to whom. If you are starting a new thread, it helps to post a link to the thread that has your basic information in it so that people like me can keep up.