jakescreek

Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jakescreek

  1. I'll investigate court, thanks, Any other suggestions from others appreciated!
  2. This debt is his, dated in 2002. I've got a pretty tie reign on his spending and credit now, it was out of control and after the bankruptcy, I started working with him on his spending. He has paid only cash since 2002. About a year ago I started working with him to clean up his record (getting the his CRs, writing letters with him signing them, etc.). No co-mingling of account has occured in the past or the present.
  3. Thanks in advance for the advice, I'll keep this brief: My father and I share the same name. He declared bankruptcy in 2002 and within the last six months one of his debts showed up on my credit report. At the time of the bankruptcy, I shared an address with him and since bankrupcies are address specific, I can only assume (along with the fact we share names) that this was the reason for confusion. I contacted the Big 3 with documented evidence of my father's bankruptcy and my innocence. Equifax and TransUnion immediately deleted the line and added a statement to my file to not confuse my CR with my father's. Unfortunately, Experian has continued to report the error and responded by saying the item has been verified every time. I have written and called to complain about this to Experian with three certified letters and two phone calls. Documented evidence of the mix-up has been provided to the Experian in the certified letters. My last certified letter included a "threat to sue" with the local court paperwork filled out. In my last contact (phone), I requested MOV. Thier response, that I recieved today was "verified, contact the OC". I have also written the OR three certified letters and they have never responded. In addition, I recently requested a credit line increase from American Express. They turned me down and included in the decline letter that it was based on "my bankruptcy as reported by Experian". Should I now proceed to the courts? I have the evidence, the American Express credit increase decline letter, the time and understand the process. My credit is clean, this is the only mark on any report. I have deleted the old address from all my CRs and added a "Jr" to my name to avoid confusion of this type in the future. Thank you.
  4. I've easily removed old and recent lates from my CR with either a phone call (SAKS and DISCOVER) or with a goodwill letter (AMERICAN EXPRESS and DISCOVER). Dispute the lates with the CRA at the same time. I only had one problem removing lates (and I had over a dozen before I started cleaning up my record). I was turned down multiple times for the deletion of some very old lates (6 1/2 years) by Chase (Curcuit City actually). Believe me when I tell you, I tried everything from phone calls on the low end to letters to VPs at the high end, and I always got the same response ......"its against the law for us to change anything, yada, yada, yada." They finally wrote me and saying that they would no longer answer my letters requesting deletion. So I vowed to myself never to do business with them again due to their a-hole behavior. I doubt I'll effect their bottom line, but I feel better. Given that you have a good relationship with the student loan people, I'd say a simple call will do the trick. Emphasize that the lates are effecting your ability to get a auto loan, home loan, job, etc. and as a new working graduate you've got enought obstacles to deal with. Good luck
  5. Well, I was able to get them to delete the tradelines by just threating and including a filled out form. If I remember correctly I said: ".....if your firm does not act within 30 days I will be filing the attached lawsuit at the Monroe County Small Claims Court, Madisonville, Tennessee." The amount for the lawsuit was $2000 - Willfully reporting false information on CR and defamation. All the CRAs responded within two weeks and deleted the files. Of course I had included additional information with the letters that the credit lines were not mine. They would have lost in court had they pressed it. I saved $330 by using the threat rather than actually filing. Good Luck!
  6. I didn't actually sue a CRA but I've filled out the paperwork at my county small claims court and used it (with each of the individual CRAs) in threating letters to get negative tradelines removed. The filing cost (at my court house) is $110 but I didn't need to file of course, the letter with a copy of the lawsuit was enought. Just go down and get a copy of the form. Also, seeing as I live right now in a very rural area of Tennessee, it might have helped them decide based on the cost to travel and defend the suit (In addition, the fact that I go trout fishing with the judge would have helped me).
  7. Call the OC and find out the status of accounts you have or had with them. (You said that you don't believe this is your account, why not confirm it?) If the OC have no records and say you have no pd of or charged-off debt, write the CA a certifed letter in responce and state what the OC told you (get a name at the OC if you can). I'd also write the CA and state that they did not mean the legal standard of DV and that you demand records of anything that directly ties you to this debt - A signed application form, cancelled checks, a contact that you agreed to, etc.
  8. The account could be a mistake on their part, a confusion of names, addresses or SSs. (Less likely it's criminal intent.) It happen to me as well. That's why regularly checking your credit record for errors is in your best interest. Your job, and the purpose of this site, is to correct the problem. Follow the outline of this site and you'll be on your way. In a nutshell: Get your free CRAs, dispute everything negative. DV the CAs with certified letters. MOV the CRAs when you know all the facts. Use the threat of a lawsuit and the courts as last resort (and come well prepared if you get this far). And always keep good records well into the future. Whether the CA collects or how much they collect is your call from here on out. Without any info on these accounts your a mushroom in the dark being feed BS.
  9. Call the OC and ask for the records, if they have them check what was recorded when you settled this account 3 years ago, If they don't have them (most likely) find out which CA they were sent to, yielding the address,then DV the CA. At the same time MOV the CRAs. In the future, get everything in writing, send certified letters and keep good records long after your past debts have been "settled". Otherwise you'll be starting at ground zero every time.
  10. HIBLUES has is right, The last option (after everything else fails) of visiting the doctor's office is a nice touch, With your hat and your hand and non-agressive, I think he'd cave, Who wants an unhappy patient sitting in the waiting room, Yes it might be imbaressing for you, but he'll be more uncomfortable with you showing up at his place of business regardless of the reasons.
  11. I would DV the CA again, MOV the CRAs, In future, get everything in writing and send everything certified, You probably have no recourse at this point but that doesn't mean you can't minimize the damage, Lesson learned.
  12. I found this on the web, thought it might be timely since these CAs are getting more crafty: So... you've requested validation of a debt and the Collector has only sent you a screenshot of your name and some unrecogized amount due? And they say that's good enough, because Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo says so? Is that what's troubling you, Bucky? It really was a "nothing" of a case- an appeal over a billing dispute heard in the 4th US district court of Appeals. The amount of the debt itself was never in question in the Chaudhry case, the dispute was over additional charges for Attorney fees. The case decided that an Itemization of Attorney's fees was confidential, protected by Attorney-Client privilege, therefore in this case- not available to the debtor. Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the debt being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed. The debt collector is not required to keep or provide detailed evidence of the alleged debt. That's the snippet you'll find quoted to you by debt collectors. On it's face, it appears clear-cut. In context, it isn't applicable to everyday debt collection. Interestingly, it does appear to require that the information come directly from the Creditor: the debt being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed. Therefore, unless the documentation the CA provides has clearly originated with the original creditor, the Collector hasn't complied with their own supposed standard. Controlling Argument. Not a lesson from the Collector's Handbook, but a legal concept regarding applicability of case law. Chaudhry was decided in the 4th District Court of Appeals and holds no real weight outside of that district. Outside the 4'th, it is only useful as a Persuasive argument- meaning it can be introduced, but carries no absolute weight of precedent. In fact, introducing it outside of the 4th may be a bad idea entirely as judges can and do resent being told that they are expected to decide exactly as another judge (not their superiors- that is different!) have decided. Unless your case is exactly identical to Chaudhry- expect introducing the Chaudhry case to do nothing other than raise the judge's blood pressure. That's a good thing as it essentially precludes a CA from using Chaudhry to defend their lack of documentation validating a debt. Oh yeah? well..Take that then... Should the judge allow Chaudhry, you can produce your copy of Spears V. Brennan, which aside from being newer, directly contradicts Chaudhry: specifically, Brennan claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between Spears and American General attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(. We cannot agree. The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt. A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spears’ loan, including a 17.99% annual interest rate and the original loan amount of $2,561.59. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments. Now we're reduced to a foreign decision standoff, with Chaudhry saying one thing, and Spears saying quite another. Result? Neither one trumps the other. The judge is going to decide based on other factors- and is probably slightly annoyed with the Collector for even bringing the Chaudhry case up. The Federal Trade Comission, the federal agency charged with maintainting and interpreting the FDCPA, has in past years issued opinion letters further clarifying the subject of debt validation. While these also carry no authoritative legal status, they may be useful as an additional persuasive argument for more thorough documentation. Because I said so, that's why. With Chaudhry out of the way, what then is sufficient validation? It's a fair assumption that the end of the line for debt collection is the courtroom. Because I said so (which includes affidavits of debt, a subject of an upcoming article) just doesn't cut it. The legal standard is "reasonable". Do the documents provided clearly and without doubt establish you as the debtor? Do they clearly show payments and charges leading up to the claimed amount? Does the collector have legal authority to accept payment on behalf of the original creditor? Are the documents believable? Provided by the OC, not created by the third-party collector? If a "reasonable" person -be it a judge, juror or mediator can answer "yes" to those questions based on the documents provided- you will likely be the proud owner of a new, shiny judgement! If not.... perhaps Mr. Chaudhry has some explaining to do
  13. That bill collector, he ain't no attorney.... Her's some info I found: So... you've requested validation of a debt and the Collector has only sent you a screenshot of your name and some unrecogized amount due? And they say that's good enough, because Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo says so? Is that what's troubling you, Bucky? It really was a "nothing" of a case- an appeal over a billing dispute heard in the 4th US district court of Appeals. The amount of the debt itself was never in question in the Chaudhry case, the dispute was over additional charges for Attorney fees. The case decided that an Itemization of Attorney's fees was confidential, protected by Attorney-Client privilege, therefore in this case- not available to the debtor. Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the debt being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed. The debt collector is not required to keep or provide detailed evidence of the alleged debt. That's the snippet you'll find quoted to you by debt collectors. On it's face, it appears clear-cut. In context, it isn't applicable to everyday debt collection. Interestingly, it does appear to require that the information come directly from the Creditor: the debt being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed. Therefore, unless the documentation the CA provides has clearly originated with the original creditor, the Collector hasn't complied with their own supposed standard. Controlling Argument. Not a lesson from the Collector's Handbook, but a legal concept regarding applicability of case law. Chaudhry was decided in the 4th District Court of Appeals and holds no real weight outside of that district. Outside the 4'th, it is only useful as a Persuasive argument- meaning it can be introduced, but carries no absolute weight of precedent. In fact, introducing it outside of the 4th may be a bad idea entirely as judges can and do resent being told that they are expected to decide exactly as another judge (not their superiors- that is different!) have decided. Unless your case is exactly identical to Chaudry- expect introducing the Chaudhry case to do nothing other than raise the judge's blood pressure. That's a good thing as it essentially precludes a CA from using Chaudhry to defend their lack of documentation validating a debt. Oh yeah? well..Take that then... Should the judge allow Chaudhry, you can produce your copy of Spears V. Brennan, which aside from being newer, directly contradicts Chaudhry: specifically, Brennan claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between Spears and American General attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(. We cannot agree. The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt. A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spears’ loan, including a 17.99% annual interest rate and the original loan amount of $2,561.59. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments. Now we're reduced to a foreign decision standoff, with Chaudhry saying one thing, and Spears saying quite another. Result? Neither one trumps the other. The judge is going to decide based on other factors- and is probably slightly annoyed with the Collector for even bringing the Chaudhry case up. The Federal Trade Comission, the federal agency charged with maintainting and interpreting the FDCPA, has in past years issued opinion letters further clarifying the subject of debt validation. While these also carry no authoritative legal status, they may be useful as an additional persuasive argument for more thorough documentation. Because I said so, that's why. With Chaudhry out of the way, what then is sufficient validation? It's a fair assumption that the end of the line for debt collection is the courtroom. Because I said so (which includes affidavits of debt, a subject of an upcoming article) just doesn't cut it. The legal standard is "reasonable". Do the documents provided clearly and without doubt establish you as the debtor? Do they clearly show payments and charges leading up to the claimed amount? Does the collector have legal authority to accept payment on behalf of the original creditor? Are the documents believable? Provided by the OC, not created by the third-party collector? If a "reasonable" person -be it a judge, juror or mediator can answer "yes" to those questions based on the documents provided- you will likely be the proud owner of a new, shiny judgement! If not.... perhaps Mr. Chaudhry has some explaining to do.
  14. from their hind quarters. Filing suit would be you next step. The CA has already shown his hand and further chance of reasonableness from him is unlikely. You might save yourself the cost of a lawsuit by sending a "theaten lawsuit" letter by filling out the form for a small claims suit (obtained at your local county court house - State a minimum of $3000). Keep the response to the CA "all business", getting angry in the letter gets you nowhere (and this CA is smart enough to try to explot any weakness in your case). Good Hunting
  15. Have you DV the CA with a certifed letter? Have you a response? If you already paid the CA (I can't tell from you posting) did you get something in writing? If the CA can't be found contact the OC and get a phone and address (If they ask tell them your being audited by the IRS) Call CA ask for records and address (Talk about nothing more). If they have them, send certified letter for DV. If they don't, get the persons name and contact CRAs with that info and MOV. If the records have been tarnsferred to another creditor, repeat above paragragh. Basically you've got to find out who has the records and who is dinging your credit. Usually they're the same, but sometimes they're not.
  16. Credit collection and improvement is the work of a skilled and patient surgeon. Cut the rot with a butcher knife, but the remains with a deboning knife. Disputate everything on multiple fronts and CYA (overwheming evidence) before you show up in that court room.
  17. Your certainly within your right to threaten or to sue but in talking to a local judge who has overseen these cases, he said that the more compelling evidence that you "went out of your way to avoid suit" proves that the CA has purposely avoided answering. Your more likely to get a judgement against and a financial penalty if you go the extra mile. After all, your the reasonable one, acting within your legal rights, not they.
  18. Don't sweat the small stuff. $75 is pretty cheap to get a complete deletion, your time and trouble trying to get a complete deletion through normal CA and CRA channels will cost you more. I'd contact the doctor (original OC) again with a certifed letter and try to get a response to remove the full amount from your CRAs. Unless you've made an permanent enemy (and it seem to be that way considering his previous response) he might reconsider (Claim oversight on your part, poor record keep or your wife's refusal). His reputation in the community for being compassionate is worth it to him.
  19. Never, Never, Never ever telephone CAs. (This site's information makes that crystal clear) Many will tape the conversation and the frontline people, in my experience, are not in a position to resolve the matter. Always use certifed letters and keep a good filing system. Always have a certifed paper trail so that if you have to go to court, you have evidence of what was said. I would suggest sending another certifed letter 30 days after the first letter. If no responce, submit a third. If no responce, send a certified letter to the CRAs with proof that CA is not responding. Wait 30 days, if CA still hasn't responded, threaten (I didn't say file) a lawsuit. If CRA don't delete the file, MOV, if not deleted, threaten a lawsuit. Get progressively threating to these people, don't push it too far, and they settle for a lower amount or delete. Good Luck
  20. This happen to me. Call the CRA and ask for MOV. Also send a certifed letter to the CRA with the evidence that this is not your account. This can also include if the account was deleted by other CRAs (I know some people on this blog say this doesn't work but for me it did). Include in the letter a filled out copy of a Small Court Claims Court filing (these can be obtained at you local county court, just fill it out without actually submitting a lawsuit to the court). Include with it the letter stating that you will be forced to file the suit (I stated for $2000) reporting false information with out proper verification. Within two weeks they deleted the credit line and I received a personal letter from the attorney at TransUnion stating that it had been removed. This also provided be with an "in" at TransUnion as I called the attorney and personally thanked her. She was abit shocked that she was on the receiving end of a positive call from a customer. Since that time I have called her once more on another file and asked her if it was OK to work it out with her rather then theaten another lawsuit. I got that credit line deleted also. Best of Luck
  21. This is what I did. Called the company to comfirm the letter was sent by them, then sent a certifed letter with the info and told them if they didn't respond promptly I would be forced to file a lawsuit. I had my report in two weeks.
  22. OC must comply with FCRA rules not FDCPA rules (that's for debt collection companies). I've had letters come back from OCs or found out later from OCs that they ignored my letters or didn't respond to them because they thought I requested the later and not the former. Don't confuse verification of the debt under FCRA with debt validation under the FDCPA. Whether the OCs were honest with me about their confusion, I'll never truly know. Regardless of what they believed or not, I used those certified letters (sent to the OC and requesting verification under FCRA) to eventually convince the credit reporting agency that the OC was ignoring my requests and it did help me delete one negative trade line. The other certified letters to various OCs also helped in my threated lawsuit against the credit reporting agencies.
  23. As a recovering addict myself, I would suggest you read as much as possible on this site about clearing up your problem. If your not in need of purchasing a car or home, time is on your side because it will take time to clean your record. So start today writing letters and challenging the CRA and CAs. I began 7 months ago with $52K in bad debt, I'm now down to $1000 and I'll have that off in two more months.
  24. This web site has been a blessing in helping me clear up and/or elimate old credit lines. In six months my Equifax credit account is clean and I have removed or modified all the incorrect, negative information within the report. Unfortunately the same results have not taken place as quickly with TransUnion and Experian. Each time I challenged an incorrect item (monthly either via phone or certified letter) they often end up not changing it (without giving me an explanation) or relisting a previously deleted or changed item on the report. I've had to repeat this process for the last 4 months and they still keep getting it wrong. Is this laziness on their part or just incompetence? Can I use the corrected Equifax credit report to apply pressure on TransUnion and Experian to get their facts straight? I have not tried phoning them and doing Method of verification, would this be the next step on the way to direct litigation? Thanks for your assistance.
  25. Thanks for the help in advance, I'm kind of at the end of my rope on what to do next. I have a closed, paid-in-full Chase Circuit City account which has been inactive since 2002. Unfortuately, I was late in Nov 2000 and Feb 2001. Since June 2006, I've contacted Chase Circuit City and - Challanged the lates on my CRs - They all came back verified - Contacted the OC and received evidence of the lates (they sent me a copy of them) - I was late on those dates. - Written first goodwill letters (and eventually letters of fustration) asking for removal of the lates - They sent me form letters saying they can only completely report, not delete or change account on CR. - Sent follow up letters explaining that they can legally delete listings (I included examples from American Express and Discover to prove my point) - Called, written, and faxed several VPs asking for help getting these lates removed - More form letters again saying that they can not delete or change account on CR. Their latest letter to me (from the same customer service rep who answers most of my letters, regardless of who I send them to) stated that in the future they will no longer respond to my calls or letters. They will be simply filed in my account folder. Any suggestions? The lates will drop off in a year and this is more like "a pebble in your shoe" type of problem but is there anything else I could do to remove these lates?