myscoresawful

Members
  • Content Count

    772
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

myscoresawful last won the day on February 14 2008

myscoresawful had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

163 Excellent

About myscoresawful

  • Rank
    500 posts and hasn't been banned yet....

Profile Fields

  • Location
    TX

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I would not be able to sleep at night if I didn't receive a statement with a current loan balance after making my payments each month. I suppose I may just be a stickler for 24/7 accuracy because I've been burned before, but really glad to hear that everything worked out for you, in your favor!
  2. From what I've read on the consumer section of the FTC website, the IDTA (Identity Theft Victim's Complaint & Affidavit) does not impose these requirements on the CRAs, but the IDTA and an "Identity Theft Report" (a report by your local Law Enforcement agency) does. It's really the ITR that makes the CRAs move, block, delete, etc and is probably why EX requested it. You may see them come back in time without the ITR, because the IDTA, when sent to the CRAs alone, is for disputing. Whether they pop back up or not might depend on how recent these accounts are, or if you get them the ITR. Here is the official form and information about it: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0094-identity-theft-affidavit.pdf If you scroll down to page 5 of that form, you'll see what I mean. I have never had to file anything like it (thankfully!) so I can't speak from experience.
  3. Please read posts thoroughly before accusing someone of not elaborating enough, or in the very least, make sure that you read it well enough to know that the advice you're giving is relevant. One more thing, don't give advice you aren't familiar with. I mean, why, (WHY?!) would you advise someone to file bankruptcy to include loans that aren't even due yet? (regardless of whether they can or can't be included).
  4. SOL in Oklahoma: Written Contracts: (most things like credit cards, installment loans such as mortgage and auto loans, etc) have a 5 year SOL, so any debt that you became deqlinquent on as of say June 2010, is now past the SOL and you can not be sued (or as I said before, if you are served on a debt that is past the SOL, you need to show up in court and simply tell the judge that it is past the SOL). Oral Contracts: (can vary in definition, but most things not covered under the Written Contracts) hold a 3 year SOL
  5. @billran ok, now I see that you are in OK. Let me see what I can find for SOL, etc and come back to this. Hang in there!
  6. I will try and help you any way I can. I have had to deal with student loans and by the way it sounds, you are in fine shape there. They're not due to start pay back until August, so no way they're reporting negatives yet. We'll try and prevent that. There are many things you can do and if these are federal student loans, I PROMISE you the lender will bend over backwards to help you as long as you STAY IN CONTACT with them.
  7. Depending on how long ago those lates were and how old these SLs are, you might see your score drop instead of increase if they just disappeared. They may be doing more positive for your length of credit history (or AAoA ) than any bad those lates may be doing if they're not too recent.
  8. The creditor doesn't have to validate, period. None of these things that you've 'copied & pasted' here, apply to the creditor. These only apply to 3rd party collection agencies. I would like to think that is what you meant to say, but in dealing with laws and violations, you need to be sure and use the correct terminology.
  9. Gotcha. Well what if you have good reason to do it that way? For example I'm severely hearing impaired (medically documented as disabling) and I always put in my request for validation "please make all further communication by USPS instead of telephone due to my severe hearing impairment"
  10. I know this is a little old, but I wanted to update this post since all of the info is here. Back in February I disputed all 3 as obsolete and 2 disappeared, but the biggest one ($1400) was verified by the CA and updated. I knew it was a bill from 2007 and no way they could legally be reporting it so I let the dust settle while working on some other things and then about 2 weeks ago I sent them a request for validation based on my rights under the Texas Finance Code. The thing is, I really wanted them to look at what they had instead of just updating with out checking their files, so that they would SEE that it was outdated. Anyway, I got a letter today and enclosed was a copy of the letter I had sent them, plus a short note from them stating that "This is not an attempt to collect a debt. Per your request, this account that you dispute, has been closed and will be deleted from your tradelines." So there you have it. It was only reporting to one bureau though, but it's gone.
  11. I'm looking at my receipt from the most recent item I sent CMRR and it comes to $6.49. (It's broken down on the receipt as follows): First Class Mail Letter: .49 Certified: $3.30 Return receipt: $2.70 It also gives the date of expected delivery which is 3 days from the date on this receipt. On the other hand, if your letter contained several copies of documents and weighed a little more, it might go up a little, but I can't imagine it weighing enough to come out to $9 bucks. Did you choose any other options? (such as Registered or Priority? Is that what you mean by 2-3 business day, 'Priority mail'? If so, certified gets there usually just as fast).
  12. 1. was there anything else in the letter that would define 'pre-approved', such as an explanation farther down with the * referencing it? The thing that would concern me is that it seems too much like the CC offers we get in the mail stating we've been pre-approved for $1500.00, then you submit the application only to realize that you are either denied, or approved for something like $300.00. It would concern me that they would come back and say 'well yeah, WE pre-approved you, but the OC (or debt owner) wouldn't after we gave them your payment". Then you would still be liable for the remainder. It happens. 2. What documents did they provide you with? Do you feel that those documents validate that you owe this? In other words, if it went to court, do you feel a judge would rule in their favor based on these documents? I don't have to tell you that you're playing with fire when it comes to such a large amount of debt, that is still within the SOL. Good luck!
  13. Unless things have changed that I'm not aware of, all they have to show is that they have the means in place to send this letter out (and I believe show that the letter was generated to send to you within the time frame). There is a possibility that the letter was sent and the US Postal service delivered it to the wrong address or just misplaced it. What I would do: I would send them a request for debt validation (CMRR) explaining that you have received verbal contact from them but have not received anything from them by mail advising you of your rights and opportunity to have this debt validated and that this letter is their notice of that and you expect validation within 30 days, etc. You can also put them on notice in the letter that all correspondence is to be done by mail from now on and no further phone calls.
  14. I don't think there is anything specific about demanding a company validate an inquiry within any amount of time. In a court, I believe they would only have to prove that someone logged on to one of their websites and entered the SSN into the application through a SSL protected website. (If that is how their name came to show up under inquiries). I have always don what the lawyer is suggesting. I dispute them with the CRA and usually they're deleted.