Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by zwiepak

  1. Ok, so I'm helping my GF clean up her credit, and sent TransUnion maybe two or three letters, each disputing different accounts. I sent two letters on one day, then the others a two days later. Keep in mind, each letter contained two, but not more than three, completely individual disputes. So, we get a letter today saying they've got 15 additonal days, blah, blah, blah. Now, 611 says: "§ 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (a) Reinvestigations of disputed information. (1) Reinvestigation required. (A) In general. Subject to subsection (f), if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller of such dispute, the agency shall, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller. ( Extension of period to reinvestigate. Except as provided in subparagraph ©, the 30-day period described in subparagraph (A) may be extended for not more than 15 additional days if the consumer reporting agency receives information from the consumer during that 30-day period that is relevant to the reinvestigation. © Limitations on extension of period to reinvestigate. Subparagraph ( shall not apply to any reinvestigation in which, during the 30-day period described in subparagraph (A), the information that is the subject of the reinvestigation is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or the consumer reporting agency determines that the information cannot be verified. " There was NO "addtional" information provided. All the disputes were individual, and no "additional" information was provided REGARDING any of those individual disputes!
  2. It's hot air. A LOT of creditors are doing this now. It's a pro-active scare tactic. They think simply because you're disputing the account then it MUST be fraud. It's BS. I have received a few of those myself, one of them (Chase I think it was) actually wanted me to physically sign off that the account was mine! lol I would not answer that letter. Search around the site, this sort of thing has been posted about often every now and then....
  3. Anyone know if such a thing exists anymore? I just find it hilarious, that in my particular situation, the only negatives I have on my credit report are a few unsecured credit card charge off's, and maybe 2 to 3 collection accounts as a resultant thereof. I've been continuously employed with a good salary for well over 10 years, have had several mortgages and auto loans spanning those 10 plus years, none of which where ever late. Yet somehow, I can't even get a decent auto loan for a 6K secondary vehicle... lol Yeah, those scoring models are great.... Anyway, I was just wondering if there is such a thing as manual underwriting anymore. If I was loan officer, and someone like me stepping in looking for a loan, sure I can see a SLIGHTLY higher than prime rate, but I'd be a really good risk....
  4. Ok, recently, my employer called me out on a few negative tradelines on my credit report, and "required" me to settle the debts due to me applying for a "Series 6" securities license. Although my situation isn't the same as yours, who knows, it just may have an impact. I told them the negative entries on my credit report were currently in a disputed state. By settling any of the accounts, I would be effectively shutting the door on any potential lawsuits and settlements, and would, in essence, be admitting guilt without a trial. By simply paying up, my credit would actually be in WORSE shape, and I would not be able to collect for damages from the creditors. It actually worked, they backed off, and I obtained my license. You've got nothing to lose by trying to address the situation! Good luck!
  5. Check out this link regarding "household" income... http://jbublick.blogspot.com/2007/07/whats-household.html
  6. Wait a minute, I don't think you have to include ALL their incomes. If I'm correct, the language reads something like, "...income of household members paid to support the debtor's household.." I think that means only that part of their income going to support your overall household. For example, if one of your household members makes 15K over 6 months, you don't include all 15K, but rather whatever portion they use to pay for your housing and utilities. FWIW, this Friday I have an initial consultation with a lawyer, as I want to get clarification on this....
  7. I'm not sure the 5 year part is right... This is what I've been finding everywhere.. "Chapter 7 Bankruptcy will eliminate all income taxes except the following tax liability: a. Taxes for which a tax return was due to be filed within three years (plus extensions) prior to the date of filing bankruptcy. For example, the tax return for 2003 income taxes was due to be filed on April 15, 2004 (plus any extensions), and therefore, these income taxes cannot be discharged by filing bankruptcy on or before April 15, 2007 (plus the time of extensions); OR b. Taxes assessed by the IRS within 240 days before the filing of bankruptcy. Assessment date is the date that tax liability is entered on IRS records; OR c. Taxes not yet assessed but still assessable; OR d. Taxes for which a tax return was filed late and filed within two years prior to filing bankruptcy; OR e. Taxes of a debtor who committed fraud related to a tax return or willfully attempted to evade or defeat taxes sought to be discharged. Income taxes that do not fail any of the above five tests may be wiped out in a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Tax Relief in a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Taxes which are non-dischargeable in Chapter 13 are considered priority debts and must be paid in full during the Chapter 13 plan without interest." Regardless, if she's going to up and file everything now, nothing will be discharged as the filing took place within the last two years. That being said though, the IRS is a "good" creditor in that you always have options, as long as you keep in touch with them. Whatever you do, DO NOT ignore them. You can mess with a CA up and down, but not with the IRS. They're like Jason from Friday the 13th, no matter how fast you run through the woods, they'll eventually catch up to you with their slow and steady lumber...!
  8. Wait a minute, don't they have to prove they own the debt in the first place??? I'm thinking copy of bank statements? Big deal, how does that prove they actually own the debt???
  9. Ok, so, here's what I'm doing: Have a couple collection accounts I'm trying to get rid of...(lol, don't we all??) Anywho, I'm clearly out of my initial "30 day" window. At the beginning of every month, I'm going to dispute with CRA's, while at the same time, DV'ing the collectors. If the CRA's verify, I'm sending them the, "Oh, how did you verify this information?" letter. If the DV's either don't respond, or they send "something" other than full "validation and verification", I'm going to repeat this process for a few months, thereby racking up obvious violations to whatever the precise section of the FCRA(or the one that governs collections, FDCRA is it? I suck at acronyms!) is, THEN sue their arses in small claims. That about the general gist of it?
  10. Heh, I'm at this precise stage with Portfolio myself. Just sent them a response to their answer, and idiotic affidavit. Someone mentioned it before, but search for "Chaundry and affidavit", and you'll get some useful info. My response basically was, your affidavit is not proof, as I can get an affidavit stating I own the Empire State building and have any random notary stamp it. I quoted some verbiage I found within some thread I found when I searched "Chaundry and affidavit", and we'll see what happens. I'm currently looking to find cases against Portfolio in Florida. I'm thinking within the next six months, I'm going to have to sue them in small claims, but I've got to line up my ducks first. As far as I can tell, if they keep reporting with no validation, they're in violation, but I'm still foggy on whether or not I can sue on that basis, as I don't think they're required to validate anything after that 30 day notice... The idea, from what I've gathered so far, is to have them keep "violating" over some amount of time, then nail them with suit... work in progress, but I'll definitely advise you on what their response, if any is. They should be getting my CMRR within the next day or two....
  11. I had Credit Acceptance. Unfortunately, my experience I don't think will help that much, but it does give a perspective nonetheless: I had them for, like you, a P.O.S. car I bought in 1996 (I was young, stupid, and needed wheels), was late many times, and in one case, even called them up to pick up the car (voluntary repo), as the damn thing broke down on the side of the road. Well, I was actually able to get it fixed for cheap, and was able to withdraw the request in time. Time went on, and I fell into some money in 1997, that allowed me to pay them back completely, although I was showing NUMEROUS lates. Kind of hard to make car payments and repair payments just about every month... Anyway, I had their tradeline on my report/s, and every so often, I would dispute the late payments, and they always came back as "verified". I let it be, as my credit was getting better and better anway, and as time went on they mattered less and less. So, fast forward to 2007: they are still on my credit reports, however, apparently, they no longer report they payment status's, and it's actually become a somewhat positive tradeline! I forget what the precise status is, something like, "Paid, or Pays as Agreed" with absolutely no reference to any late payments whatsoever. So, that's my story with CAC, like I said, probably won't help you much, but at least there's someone else here that's apparently dealt with them!
  12. A point to consider: What is a realistic outlook for your wife's future. Do you think she'll be employed relatively soon? What I'm getting at is this: If your personal situation has yet to bottom out, and you don't forsee the need for credit over the next few years, and I hate to say this, but it is reality, you might be better off not paying a dime from this point forward. Basically, you don't want to get to a point where let's say, 6 months down the road, she's still unemployed, and you're still scratching by, to the point where you can't even make the hardship payments anymore, and end up defaulting on those accounts. If that happens, all that money you strugged to give them, effectively, goes up in smoke, and you're still left holding the bag with crappy credit, collection accounts, sans your cash of course... Again, I don't like this route, and would advocate against it at all costs, but it's the cold hard reality of it. Credit triage. A variation of this happened to me, I lost my job, moved to another State, and the best job I could find in the new State paid 40% less than where I was at. I had about 6 CC's with minimum payments I could no longer reasonably afford, even with their hardship programs. It's a tough decision to make and come to. Again, I don't really suggest this, it's only appropriate for a limited number of scenarios, but worth contemplating nonetheless.
  13. I just got my account "suspended", count me in for a class action.
  14. So, apparently, Creditmax (which, incidentally, yeilds no search results on this site), folded rather easily. Fired my DV off to 'em at the beginning of the month, now they're gone from the CRA's....
  15. I believe they intend it to be a scare tactic. Somewhere, for the life of me I can't remember where, I read they cannot "threaten" to contact your place of employment. If so, then I believe that letter is a violation I can use against them. The best part is this though: I've intentionally kept my current employer off my reports. None of the three CRA's have my current employment information, what they have is two employers ago..... lolololol I've gone through great lengths to control the personal information on my reports such that I don't get any phone calls, and all they have is a P.O. Box to communicate through.
  16. Ok, my war on credit has officially started, Operation "Stomp Portfolio" has been initiated... For my first attack, I decided to strike at the enemy, August 1, 2007, in the middle of the night by the dim light of my monitor, submitting disputes to the CRA's that contained entries for Portfolio... By morning, the second prong of Operation Stomp Portfolio was implemented, when I fired off into their camp, a DV letter, Aug. 2, CMRR, so we know they got hit, when on August 6, I received the RR. About a week later, they fired a dud RPG into my camp, no one was injured. I believe this dud is a violation of the FCRA? The intention is to obviously THREATEN contact at my place of employment: ...and so, on August 23, I receive a response to my DV. Do you think this is sufficient for DV?? Ok, so here's what I think: 1. I've got them on some sort of threat violation with the first letter 2. I don't believe they've actually "validated" anything Do you agree? The end of the month is coming up, and the CRA investigations should be complete.
  17. I just have to say, GREAT JOB! What an excellent read! I'm fairly certain I'll be in court relatively soon, and it was just great to read this! Granted, things might not turn out as rosy, this I understand, but it's great to hear nonetheless!!
  18. Funny you mention Portfolio... I just found they inserted themselves as an "installment account" for 2 credit bureaus, and "collections" on another...
  19. Damn, I really didn't think that one through... Thanks though, I really didn't see it beyond, or rather, the proper overall context... Time to sit and think about this a bit longer... Well, in any event, I'm sticking to the flow chart, sent the letter and initiated the disputes...
  20. er, why? I don't see it, what, they get served, they, in essence, get ticked off and you get nowhere?
  21. Ok, so I got the book, and now I'm putting it to good use. So that's my question, why the additional 15-20 days to give them, essentially, a second chance? I'm thinking on day 31 file and serve, might as well make a grand out of it right? Anyway, that's what I'm currently thinking. Is this a rational idea?
  22. Yes, and yes. (although I do agree with someonesomewhere the chances are decent it'll be ok) If this were me though, I'd "safety" that 5K quick... Seriously, as the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. All it takes is one unscrupulous creditor or CA to zap that account should they get wind of it. Even if they do it illegally and you can sue the warts off their arses, you're going to have to move mountains of time and guano to get it back IF you can... Just think how much it would suck to wake up one morning and find it GONE, and all the crap you'll have to go through to get it back, with a very real possibility you won't. Then again, this is my opinion on this matter, and I am known to be overly paranoid at times, so take it as you see fit. So I guess the REAL question is, how much is that 5 large worth to you? Enough to chance it at 5-10%??? 10-20%???
  23. Dude, that's actually impressive! It's like if your credit is going to go down the gutter, it might as well go big...! The irony is this: If those are your fico scores (NOT fako, as far as I know, you can only get true FICO from myfico.com), you actually have better credit than me, scorewise, and all I've done was get in deep with 6 credit cards (my only negative trade lines) for a mere pittance of about 30K, or roughly 1.5% of your debt.... lol , yet I've got like 20 positive trade lines encompassing real estate, autos, etc... Scorewise, I'm actually a WORSE risk than you, even though you have a proven record of foreclosures and repo's... lol ...ain't credit scoring great???
  24. I'm sorry, I'm still baffled by this, and spent a good 45 mins. using the search function... For example, I just disputed all 6 "bad" tradelines through TransUnion. One fell off. Is it the CRA's responsibility to contact the other two to also delete that particular entry?
  • 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.