Two PAID CO's removed, Yippee

[ADSOFT]

I had two paid CO that I paid to the OC. I first disputed them as not mine and both came off 2 CRA'S.

I wasn't sure how to get them off the 3RD CRA. That standard recommended approach is to DV the CA.

So I called the CA to get a mailing address(I don't recommend you do that, I you don't have the address ask a member,create a post and they will point you the right direction, NEVER call CA not matter what, unless you HAVE to settle and ask for advice first!!!!!)since I didn't know how to get the CA'S address off the net. It turns out that they are in BANKRUPTCY(OSI) and they have a recording to call the OC.

I didn't want to call the OC because these guys have been nothing but trouble for me, and I'm still doing business with them. So I disputed the DOLA date with the CRA, my game plan was to call them 10 days later and tell the CRA that OSI is out of business.

.... I worked(Yippie !!!!!). I called the CRA and I told them, "HEY, I was told 4 months ago to dispute the DOLA on this account on both sides(CRA/CA) now the CA is out of business, ... what gives???" The CRA told me well they have 15days to respond otherwise it comes off. So I said, " ??? they are out of business???". The CRA said, ... "well if they don't respond we will take it off".

5 days later. .... IT WAS OFF!!!!! ... two less charge offs to worry about, Yahoo!!!!!!

I recommend that if you have anything with OSI, or a company that you have DV'd and sent an ESTOPELL try "Hey, these guys are out of business, I'm disputing DOLA( or balance or whate ever), I was told to dispute with the CA and CRA. Maybe even offering to fax estoppel letter.

I'm so happy. I hope this helps some of guys with PAID CO'S and/or DEAD BEAT CA'S that don't respond to DV'S, or CA that are out of BUSINESS!!!

[DocDon]

Good job AD! Always good to see new tactics that work.

[ADSOFT]

DOCDON

I just realized why the VALIDATION area on the board states that you should send your CMRR'S if you don't recieve validation in 30 days. .. lack of solid proof that they (ca) has legal basis to collect/report!!!!

This gave me some new ideas. ... and now I understand what an old member KENB... from TEXAS was saying.

I think that the MANAGEMENT staff (those who manage the CSR'S at the CRA'S) are FDCPA savvy(They would have to be to make sure that the CA'S are not doing something that might get them in trouble). So maybe after a 30 day DV letter, if you don't get proper validation (signed contract) from the CA, send a copy of the DV letter along with a Wolman Letter and maybe Ca$$ letter to the CRA via Fax, and ask for the CRA'S manager. Tell the manager, hey your client the CA is either incompetant or misinformed, I gave them 30 days, they have no proof, according to WOLLMAN they are breaking FTC rules, ... your company might also be implicated in a future law suit, ... Can you please remove this TL??? If they (CRA) say no, then dispute the DOLA and send ESTOPPEL(15 DAYS) to CA. If no response (or improper response to estoppel, ie, improper validation) then send 15 day estoppel to CRA and ask for removal. If they (CA) forgot to put TL in dispute, that might be leverage on CRA to remove????

Do all the above in conjuntion with CMRR. What I have found works is to send a CMRR and a FAX within a 2 day time period. Then I tell CA'S, BTW this letter I just faxed you is also going CMRR for the record!!!.

... What do you think: FAX + CMRR + WOLLMAN + CA$$ ??????

What do you think??

[DocDon]

The idea that the CRAs are FCRA savvy is debatable at best.

The CRAs always fall back on the defense that they are just a repository for their clients and cannot control the information that they receive. On top of that, they almost dare you to take them to court. There have been many cases against them, but many of the decisions are reversed on appeal given the plaintiff could not prove they deliberately and “willfully failed to comply with any requirement” imposed under the FCRA.

§ 610. Conditions and form of disclosure to consumers [15 U.S.C. § 1681h]

(e) Limitation of liability. Except as provided in sections 616 and 617 [§§ 1681n and 1681o] of this title, no consumer may bring any action or proceeding in the nature of defamation, invasion of privacy, or negligence with respect to the reporting of information against any consumer reporting agency, any user of information, or any person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency, based on information disclosed pursuant to section 609, 610, or 615 [§§ 1681g, 1681h, or 1681m] of this title or based on information disclosed by a user of a consumer report to or for a consumer against whom the user has taken adverse action, based in whole or in part on the report, except as to false information furnished with malice or willful intent to injure such consumer.

Realistically, the only way this is going to change is if we, as special interest, contribute more to campaigns than the CRAs. It’s common knowledge that the CRAs do not abide by the statute. They don’t have to. We’ve all seen what this leads to. Items coming back verified after only three days, failure to provide verification process, refusal to reinvestigate items, etc. They consistently fall back on the fact that it is up to us to prove malice or willful intent to injure, and they have the defense that “mistakes are going to be made” given the amount of data they process daily.

Anyway, enough of my political soapbox. You have the right idea of coming at them from multiple angles, a kind of Pincer Maneuver. I’ve used similar tactics with positive results.

Read up on the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 as well. I’ve come up with some good ideas from the new additions to the FCRA.

Here’s a good write-up on it:

http://www.cardweb.com/cardtrak/pastissues/special.html

[ADSOFT]

Thanks for responding Don.

I'm having internet access problems.

I reviewed post(sorry didn't have time to read the link). I totally agree with you that the CRA'S are only depositories for the CA'S and OC. So I read section 11 of the FCRA and found.

§ 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i]

.....

(5) Treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable information.

(A) In general. If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) of any information disputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the consumer's file or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation.

What do you think of putting in your DV letter a statement asking that the CA provide FULL VALIDATION in 30 days (sig and contract obligation and verify amount).... furthermore, failure of the CA to respond to this letter in 30 days will be admission of the CA that the information being reported to the CA is "inaccurate and incomplete" and will be grounds for removal according to the FCRA. ...which is basically, what the estoppel says (I think). ... anyhow I think you know where I'm going with this, force them to respond in 30-45 day otherwise they are admitting that the data is unverifiable and inaccurate under FCRA???? Then non compliance by the CRA to delete or at least contact the CA and provide proof of contact under the PROCEDERAL INVESTIGATION clause might be able to prove willfull non compliance or lack of proper procdures(negligence)..

... ???? What do you think!!!!

.... Sorry can't really concentrate due to these internet probs.

[DocDon]

That could work. I had a similar issue when a CA kept verifying info as accurate when it was obvious it was not. I cut the CA out of the loop and forwarded my proof directly to the CRAs. The item was deleted.

The other two were deleted once they were forced to answer to the Attorney General. I still have copies of their apology letters.

[ADSOFT]

That could work. I had a similar issue when a CA kept verifying info as accurate when it was obvious it was not. I cut the CA out of the loop and forwarded my proof directly to the CRAs. The item was deleted.

The other two were deleted once they were forced to answer to the Attorney General. I still have copies of their apology letters.

Wow, thanks, I will add that to my DV and Estoppel letters... Um now I have to figure out how to put a Procedural investigation clause in CRA dispute letters!!!!