Jump to content

VonAngel (aka EarthAngel)

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by VonAngel (aka EarthAngel)

  1. You don't need to wait another 30 days to follow up, especially since they've responded to your first request already.
  2. Have you tried contacting the insurance company to find out why they didn't pay it? I know that you just want this TL off of your reports, but the entire credit repair process takes time. You would want to cover all of your bases. You see, consumers are usually at the bottom of the pole when it comes to credit repair. The CRA listens to their paying customers (data furnishers) over us; creditors and CAs listen to each other. We must continue to make noise until we're heard. So, if you want this TL gone, you should think of other ways to try to get rid of it instead of just relying on DV. That insurance co may be able to research your coverage and tell you that that bill should have been paid by them. That can be a rather slow process (sometimes). Also, if you followed the DV process accordingly and requested validation w/in 30 days of your initial communication w/ the CA, then they must provide you w/ that validation. Sending you a printout of their computer screen does not prove that you owe the debt. So, if you choose, you could send them a firmer follow-up DV letter requesting proof from the OC that you owe this bill as they ARE classified as a CA per the FDCPA.
  3. (My advice is based on the assumption that you have followed the DV process accordingly.) Send them a follow up letter informing them that since they have failed to provide validation to you...you are requesting that they cease all collection activity, including the removal of the TL (as they agreed to do). They may very well have no intention on continuing to attempt collection, but you want to make sure your bases are covered.
  4. You can send a "kiss my butt since the debt is out of SOL" letter, but they don't have to stop reporting until their time is up (11/08). It's past the SOL to collect but not for the reporting period. So yes, it's legal for them to report IF they are attempting to collect legally. (That info can be found out by DVing.) You can dispute directly w/ the OC once you dispute w/ the CRA and get a response. You're right; mentioning the SOL to the OC has nothing to do w/ the reporting of the TL.
  5. That may help or it may not. CRAs hardly ever listen to consumers. Request directly from the DF to remove the TLs, since it's the one paying to report.
  6. Okay, first off, you do not DV CRAs. The FDCPA does not apply to them. The CA however must provide validation to you if you requested it w/in the 1st 30 days of initial communication. If your 1st DV letter to Asset was your initial communication, then they must comply. But as I'm sure you've read, Asset plays hardball. The 01/2007 date isn't the DOFD; it should be the date that Asset bought the account. Therefore, it won't be reaging...UNLESS...that date is actually reporting in the Date of First Major Delinquency line on your EQ report. If it is, then yes...you have grounds for a suit.
  7. Is this your bill? Are the charges accurate? Was this a bill that was supposed to be covered by insurance?
  8. MadMonkey, the OP is referring to dispute letters to the CRAs...not sending DV letters to CAs. CRAs do NOT have to respond to DVs as the FDCPA does not apply to them. As for CAs, YES...indeed...send your DVs via CMRRR, which is why I said in my 1st response that "CAs are a different case" in reference to CMRRRs being a waste of $. While the CRA only needs your legal name, address, and SS#, there are instances where additional ID is needed b/c the info a consumer provides does not match their records. This happens many times w/ misspelled names, incomplete names, or even wrong address. If you don't want to send in any copies of your IDs, then by all means don't. But they can always refuse to investigate until you provide proof. It's extremely difficult to sue a CRA and win. So, IMO, not cooperating is the last thing you should do...unless their request is unreasonable.
  9. Welcome to CIC, missdee! 1): Sending disputes via CMRRR to CRAs (CAs are a different case) are a waste of $...unless they claim that they didn't get a dispute. Unless you're in a dire emergency, I don't see how an additional 2wks is going to deter your progress. What I mean is...if you send in your written disputes via regular mail...wait 2wks...check w/ CRAs for receipt and they claim they didn't get it, then you can resend it via CMRRR or delivery confirmation. Some pple feel more comfortable doing it the 1st time around; it sort of gives them a peace of mind. I, personally, would want to save $. In my experience, CRAs have never claimed to have not gotten any of my disputes. If you must have proof that the CRAs receive your disputes, then send them w/ delivery confirmation. It's the same concept and will save you $. 2): Yes, send in your identification. While it may add 15 days to their investigation time, they will not "investigate" your disputes w/o it. Their policy is...how can they investigate if they can't verify who you are? 3): Yes. Make sure you include your information and a copy of the letter they sent to you asking you to verify your identity. You want to make sure that they have no reason to prolong the investigation. 4): A do over isn't necessary.
  10. The actual status is sort of a negative when it comes to your score. FICO takes into consideration how you're using your credit. If you're not using it (since it's inactive), then you're not gaining any points for that. HOWEVER, you ARE gaining points b/c of the history of this account. But as for the TL itself, if it's reporting as a positive, then it's not hurting you. If it's reporting as a negative, then you should negotiate for a positive status. I would hate for you to get this TL removed and end up losing its long history.
  11. That's just it. They AREN'T making $ off of you, so why do you a favor when you aren't doing any for them? KWIM. It's crappy, but it's the way they work. You can apply now since you only have an 18% utilization. (Showing SOME utilization is better than showing none, as far as FICO is concerned.) You can try for the 2 cards you really want. If you don't get them, then you may have to settle for other rewards card. Like I always tell myself, the most they can tell you is "no". So, give HSBC and/or Chase a try. Let us know the results.
  12. Creditors' thrive on making $$ off of consumers. During ARs, they do a soft pull of your report to see if you're "worthy" of any account changes/perks. By "worthy", I mean...to see if you have maintained your credit status (no recent baddies) AND to see if you have obtained any competitive credit . The highest limit you have is $1000. They probably see that as nothing to compare to. Some creditors, such as Orchard, hardly ever do increases or rate drops. If they do, it's a minimal increase and after you've had the card longer than 18 months. In my experience, credit increases usually depend on the actual creditor and not on my credit. If I want better rates, then I would just apply for a better card. When my credit improved and my (then) present credit cards wouldn't honor my requests, I ended up applying for higher tier cards...like Juniper (now Barclays) and AMEX (which I was able to obtain both). Orchard was my oldest credit line, but I still closed it as they weren't doing anything to help me, not even making my secured card an unsecured one. My credit didn't suffer not one bit. (I can't say the same for others tho.) In a nutshell, try applying for a better card instead of relying on the stiffs you currently have. YOU may know that your credit has improved, but THEY don't care. They just want to keep you @ their level to continue to make $ off of you.
  13. The key words in that small print are "may not"; BUT it is very possible. I not only had a US Airways and a Carnival Seamiles, but when I closed the Carnival one, I applied for another US Airways card and was approved. They combined my limits and even made effective the terms of agreement for the newer card (which has a $0 annual fee and lower interest rate).
  14. Yup, Cap1 is good for @ least that. They did the same for my beau on 3 of his cards. So, good for you, Dive!!!!
  15. Not true. I got the Delta one week, the Blue 2wks [or so] later, and then the Clear the very next week. If this IS their policy, then it must be a new one.
  16. https://www.barclaycardus.com/app/ccsite/affiliates/prtnrCoBrandDynamic.jsp
  17. Everyday except Sundays for almost 2yrs. TC shut down on me too. I couldn't even dispute online w/ EQ. Trust me...split files are NOT my idea of entertainment.
  18. You guys are lucky. When my EQ report was split, I couldn't pull my report online or get a score @ all.
  19. I was referring to the utilization percentage range that would affect your FICO scoring. Your mortgage company is basing its decision on your actual debt. Your scores just got your foot into the door.
  20. A 0%-utilization doesn't indicate how you are using credit. So, a $0-balance isn't helping you any.
  21. It is already a part of the "Who Pulls Your Credit" sticky at the top of this forum.
  22. There are several [recent] AMEX threads around. You'll learn that AMEX offers numerous cards and several of them DO have limits and allow consumers to pay back over time.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.