• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by willy2004

  1. related links: name/address/SSN reinsertions http://debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=92935#92935 publication of "Social Security number variations" http://debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14985
  2. Experian does not regard a consumer’s request to remove name variations, extinct addresses, or even (the ever repulsive) “Social Security number variations” as §611 disputes. My own consumer reports evidence this by virtue of reinsertions in the absence of notice of reinsertion. The Experian policy is admitted to in the following portion of a letter that I received from Exerian. It reads: (with regard to "SSN variations") “Otherwise, every time they submit updates to Experian, they may re-report the same variations.” In other words, SSN variations, name variations, and outdated addresses
  3. “Social Security number variations” is the title of a section that each of us have on our Experian consumer report. Hopefully you don’t have any “SSN variations” on your consumer report. This is a §607( problem that may lead to file mixing and identity theft. Check your report and please post how many variations you have. To be sure, we each have ONE SSN and no more. This HAS to be a "maximum possible accuracy" issue.
  4. The 120 days late is NOT a positive tradeline. Assuming that the tradeline is accurate, you are entitled to have one removed as there are duplicates present. You will easily get one removed.
  5. I am not going to be a plaintiff in this matter, but I did send off 20 or so pages to the firms below. ECL and Mr. Bragg in particular are aware of this "PREVIOUSLY INVESTIGATED.." issue. Much of my correspondence relates to the "other" issues that I will describe in another thread and provide links to below. In short, the "other issues" are that EX does not regard a demand or request for deletion of a false name/false address as a Section 611 dispute. EX follows none of the reinsertion guidelines required by Section 611(a)(5). This is evidenced by the reappearance of the old names and
  6. Folks, I posted this on this site awhile ago I am pretty sure, and this is a cut and paste from a recent post on another site. I think that it is an accurate analysis:Here is my analysis: There are precisely TWO ways that a CRA can respond to a "dispute." 1) reinvestigate 2) declare that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant The response (edited "notice" to "response") that it was "PREVIOUSLY INVESTIGATED ON (a particular date)" is by default a "frivolous or irrelevant" determination. And here is the FCRA violation: Where is the required Sect 611(a)(3)©(ii) notice? It is not there, am
  7. good job, I spoke to my alma mater (also a UC school, but up in northern cali) and they helped me out.
  8. It has always been my opinion that anything coming from an OC is gold. It gives you additional evidence and supporting documentation that you can use as leverage with a CRA. I attached two letters from creditors to an Experian dispute and Experian responded by stating that they could not use the docs. LMAO, one of the letters actually contained threatening language: 'This account should be reported as CURRENT/NEVER LATE. It is now up to the CRA to accurately report the account.' Experian updated it to read "30 days late." Morons.
  9. A "promise" in the context of admin's first post describes a "contract," and a "new contract" at that. You cannot contract away your statutory rights even if you try to. For that matter, you cannot contract at the 4 year mark to "extend the statute of limitations." Of course, you could sign a contract that states your willingness to "extend the statute of limitations," but that contract would be unenforceable. (not a valid contract) I believe that the thrust of the first post in this thread is that in 18 states, a mere payment does not imply the formation of a "new promise" or a "new contra
  10. ceo, yeah well they sent me a "deletion" letter that simultaneously requested payment--that is a class action waiting to happen. utman, are you in the right thread? wanna start a new thread on that or else give me a link please. In response to your second question, yes a new CA can report the tradeline. I would want to know how you got the previous one(s) deleted. You can peg EFX on the reinsertion if you wish, sure.
  11. Does it say "TU" on the back of it? Hummm...I could be dreaming, but just checkin'
  12. I have a suspicion that TU owns part of or all of ARROW. Reason...I got an envelope from what I am pretty sure was Arrow and it has a "TU" notation on the back...humm..worth another thread.
  13. the CRA was not able to verify at all, therefore they deleted and ignored the possibility of modifying. Check out Sect 611
  14. regarding the goodwill, I PMed you a number to call. regarding the INQ, that is impermissible as you have described it.
  15. thanks Swede...and KRISTY, but of course. I posted on a board (not a credit board) that had an OUTHOUSE for posts like that spammer that was here last evening. I am not suggesting it for CI as deletion works "very well." I almost called the Board "CIC" until I realized that this abbreviation relates to PG or one of those online credit pullers. Yikes, close call. be well
  16. nutz, to make it clear, I like to do the following: The purpose of this letter is to dispute the following items of information on my Experian consumer report: 1) ............. 2) the name ".........." 3) the tradeline "ABC Collecitons........" 4) the address "..............." etc...... Then you can write some paragraphs on each item below your list. You may wanna stick all of the "name" disputes or you may want to break them up, depending on how many you have. try that--make sure that your first paragraph lists your identifying information (SSN, date of birth, current address, etc..) I have
  17. momof5, thanks for the post. Do you have any idea why they are not returning your calls? Any idea when you were placed there? I received no formal notification, rather I called the 800# one day almost two years ago and was told that my file was in "Priority." I am guessing that you call their Pennsylvania office directly. They don't have an 800# for that Priority Dept or do they? thanks for sharing
  18. GD, well...TU does not have a toll free number for the Priority Dept. Take a look at Sect 609©(1) and tell me what you think. They won't even let me dispute over the phone--they put it in writing. Poor me, eh? lol If I suspected that they were at all savvy, I would conclude that they are trying to remove the "typicality" requirement for a class representative. I kinda doubt that they will be "rewarded" for this action.
  19. GD, will depend on each state's law. The federal law speaks to one party consent, but states are allowed to make their own stricter criminal laws. 18 U.S.C. Section 2511(2)(d). Some states allow taping but not disclosure of the contents of the tape recording. Michigan appears to me to be one of those,maybe...fuzzy and I would want to look at the case law to say one way or the other. If you have two states that each alllow one party consent and disclosure of the contents, then it is fine to tape and disclose. This is NOT intended as legal advice--I rarely find it necessary to say that, bu
  20. not a prob, SNOW agree with guarddog on positing everything in writing..unless I could legally tape. Which state are we in? I wouldn't advise one way or the other on taping unless...LOL, I won't say it, but there are some states where it is rather cut and dry.
  21. douglas, I would venture to guess that filing an AG complaint in three states would guarantee you a seat in the Priority Dept. LMAO
  22. Legend, is the duplicate on a TU report? The reason that I ask is because I consider this to be a Section 607( issue that may or may not remain in my case...just filed it to beat the SOL before amending later.
  23. I would definitely wait until the SOL is gone..then FIRE AWAY.
  24. Snow, I will leave the light on for you in the Priority Dept if I can find it. lol If you "cc" TU on your FTC Complaint or AG Complaint, you will likely be detoured to the "Priority" Department. FTC is 877-FTC-HELP (you need to call in order to get a "reference number") Fax is 202-326-2012
  25. I needed that, hahahah!!!!!!!!! 8) btw, I believe that my question re the Atlanta area codes is answered. Since the (770) area code only came about in the 1990's, it makes sense that any (770) number was originally a (404) number. If there was another area code in Atlanta besides (404) during the period of time prior to the creation of the (770) area code, then I would ask if the 2675 Paces Ferry Road addy was in some area code other than (404). My strong suspicion is that the address was in fact in the (404) area code at one time. thanks for the feedback (and the laughs!)