Jump to content

Developing your "NOT-MINE" skill set!!!


ADSOFT
 Share

Recommended Posts

Where does the "NOT-MINE" response come from: Well read FCRA: The Fair Credit Reporting Act, it States:

§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

(a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.

(1) Prohibition.

(A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate.

(B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if

(i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and

(ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.

The Premise of the "NOT-MINE" attitude. By focusing on errors and the source of errors you can get information that doesn't belong on your credit report, OUT!!!

Anybody who tries to do that, is in violation,A FEDERAL OFFENSE, nobody want to create a FEDERAL OFFENSE, if it is a blatent violation people are more willing to cooperate with you to get information out, of YOUR file!!!

]

[Edit by ADSOFT on Saturday, May 24, 2003 @ 08:50 AM]

[Edit by ADSOFT on Saturday, May 24, 2003 @ 09:26 AM]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It wasn't me..."

"But I SAW you!!!"

"You saw somebody that LOOKED like me! But it wasn't me..."

-Eddie Murphy from RAW...

Reading the law gives everybody the legal basis to simply state "It wasn't me...".

But watching the Eddie Murphy movie RAW, gives us the inspiration and the audacity to say to anybody, "It wasn't me...".

We got the written law to back us and we have Eddie Murphy to inspire us.

In fact, just the other day when I was talking to Monogram bank, I told the customer service rep, "it wasn't me... maybe there was somebody out there that LOOKED like me when they applied for this credit card, but it wasn't me..." The customer rep said, "well, okay... here is the address, just go ahead and write to them requesting that this inquiry should be removed because it wasn't you"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, Rav, I'm ashamed at you, how dare you say that it is audacious to ask somebody to remove incorrect information about you. You should be energetic about enforcing your rights to have somebody report correct information about you, that is your CHARACTER you are talking about!!!

....

I'm getting an affidavate for the US POST OFFICE that state that my mailing address was listed incorrectly on my mail.

The mail man is going to get all the information necessary, and is more than happy to comply and we developed a great friendship

How did I get him to be so cooperative. "IT WASN'T US". Why should I piss the post office off.

I'm using this approach to get the CRA'S to cooperate in helping me get the OC and CA get informaition out: We put the pressure on the bad guys to get information out of my file and their computers.

Actually, the manager's become very cooperative when they can determine that it was not both you or the CRA, they will help you get the proper procedures to put pressure on the people who are suppling erronous information into you file:

1. wrong credit limits

2. wrong days paid off

3. wrong names supplied to your account.

4. accounts being duplicated in your accouts.

And when you get into validation you will learn

1. People who don't have legal right to bill you

2. People who don't know how to Determine DOLA

3. CA'S with bad recording procedures.

... the real bad guys

[Edit by ADSOFT on Saturday, May 24, 2003 @ 08:55 AM]

[Edit by ADSOFT on Saturday, May 24, 2003 @ 08:59 AM]

[Edit by ADSOFT on Saturday, May 24, 2003 @ 09:00 AM]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by ADSOFT

1. wrong credit limits

2. wrong days paid off

3. wrong names supplied to your account.

4. accounts being duplicated in your accouts.

</blockquote>

I was wondering....if an account was charged-off, then sold to another collector, but paid afterwards, how is it possible that they can show up as 2 different collections, for the same debt? EXAMPLE.......Direct Merchants Charged off, Sold to Arrow, Payment after charge-off/collection. I would like for one, maybe both to pull a Jimmie Hoffa, on my CRAs

[Edit by Waxworks on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 @ 06:19 AM]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ADSOFT- I think you're missing a major point, in order for you to win in court against a CRA, you need to prove that they did not follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum accuracy. Just because you dispute something and it's verified and you ask for procedural description and you don't get it doesn't mean you autmatically win.

And fyi, these concepts, multiple disputes, procedural requests, disputing as not mine, debt validation, goodwill letters etc have been around for years and is not really "created" by anyone here. In fact, most of these strategies are created by credit veterans over at creditnet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eddie Murphy – Raw, was released in 1987 (16 years ago). The “it wasn’t me…” approach utilized by Eddie Murphy and immortalized by the artist Shaggy is tongue and cheek humor about a rationalization for lying.

However, I am sure that this approach has been used long before Eddie Murphy. Like in the Garden of Eden when Adam was telling God, “it wasn’t me…” or Cain telling God “it wasn’t me…” about his slain brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by Waxworks

<blockquote>Originally posted by ADSOFT

1. wrong credit limits

2. wrong days paid off

3. wrong names supplied to your account.

4. accounts being duplicated in your accouts.

</blockquote>

I was wondering....if an account was charged-off, then sold to another collector, but paid afterwards, how is it possible that they can show up as 2 different collections, for the same debt? EXAMPLE.......Direct Merchants Charged off, Sold to Arrow, Payment after charge-off/collection. I would like for one, maybe both to pull a Jimmie Hoffa, on my CRAs

[Edit by Waxworks on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 @ 06:19 AM]

</blockquote>

Well, I'm glad you asked this question, that is the next project that I'm taking on: Removing an account that has been bounced around several creditors, to get to the culperate.

As far as a direct answer on how to remove it, I don't know at this time.

BUT, I encourge VETERANS to submit their approaches!!!

But, lets continue with the "NOT-MINE" attitude!!!

[Edit by ADSOFT on Saturday, May 24, 2003 @ 09:04 AM]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by Swede

ADSOFT- I think you're missing a major point, in order for you to win in court against a CRA, you need to prove that they did not follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum accuracy. Just because you dispute something and it's verified and you ask for procedural description and you don't get it doesn't mean you autmatically win.

And fyi, these concepts, multiple disputes, procedural requests, disputing as not mine, debt validation, goodwill letters etc have been around for years and is not really "created" by anyone here. In fact, most of these strategies are created by credit veterans over at creditnet.

</blockquote>

Swede(Y) Pie., you know I love you, but,

... That's exactly my point! I'm trying to avoid going to Court, yet building a paper-trail along the way, and staying out of the frivoulas arena. And, becoming comfortable saying its "not mine" is the basic tool that is going to get you their.

The Problem is alot of us, including myself feel/felt that by saying "IT NOT MINE" you are somehow "not wanting to" pay your bill. Hey, I don't mind paying my bills, But I'm not paying outrages fees that I didn't agree to, or paying for a service I never ordered, or for a product that never met it's intended use, or for being hoodwinked into doing something I wasn't aware of.

Now, as far as automatically, winning in court because you got a violation on somebody, well no you are not going to automatically win in court, but you have a bargaining chip, to get the Negitive blemish off your report.

... But, what about what CHEXSYSTEMS is doing to people out there for having one NSF FEE:

One violation and you can't get a checking account for 5 years. There are many people who were following proper procedures for many years and one slip(maybe due to curcumstances beyond their control:health, layoff, marriage, banks being sold, data corruption, post office, ....) They can't get a checking account. So, How are these people going to fight back, many banks will not listen. Fight fire with fire. Maybe we consumers should be awarded an automatic fee, after a "Consumer Sourced mini-maranda".

Now, the reason that I'm trying to get people to develope their not mine attitude is because alot of people on the following link are some what reluctant.

..Read it for yourself.

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/cgi-local/cutecast/cutecast.pl?action=edit&forum=1&thread=6796&msgid=16&query=16

Swede , I love you.

... I have to see my accountant.

Have a nice day.

Some of

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/cgi-local/cutecast/cutecast.pl?action=edit&forum=1&thread=6796&msgid=16&query=16

[Edit by ADSOFT on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 @ 08:43 AM]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by ADSOFT

... That's exactly my point! I'm trying to avoid going to Court, yet building a paper-trail along the way, and staying out of the frivoulas arena. And, becoming comfortable saying its "not mine" is the basic tool that is going to get you their.

</blockquote>

What I mean with "missing the point" is that you need to create a strong case, giving the CRA's the impression that you hold all the cards and that they're better off deleting than battling with you. A dispute as not mine + a procedural investigation request will not do that. Don't forget the provision in the FCRA that states that they have the right to label you as frivolous and that the procedural provision states:

(iii) a notice that, if requested by the consumer, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information shall be provided to the consumer by the agency, including the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available

You need to remember that these companies have been sued MANY times and they know thatif they can show "reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuraacy" they stand a strong chance to win in court. I know that you're trying to avoid court as most of us here but you don't want them calling your bluff.

Also, don't forget that if you threaten to sue TU, they'll put you in "special handling department" whereas EQ will freeze your report for you and all creditors. You don't need that BS esp. if your case is not very strong.

[Edit by Swede on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 @ 09:21 AM]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you figure anything out? I too have a Wards that says "Account Transfered or Sold". It went to a collection agency that I setteled with for a much less ammount, that agency says "Making Payments" and it is now payed Off and should be updating. No I would like to get the wards off

[Edit by subsailor on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 @ 09:24 AM]

[Edit by subsailor on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 @ 09:24 AM]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks SWEDE

I was in a slight rush. I meant to say, that I usually tell them that according to the "FCRA which is regulated by the FTC" it is a violation to enter incorrect information. What is in your computer does not match the OC , ... OR is wrong.,

I never threaten to take anybody to court, just quote FTC, maybe threaten to have FTC call them.

... Also, thanks about the suit info.

Love Ya

Have a nice day!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can put on the report "making payments"? That's a new one on me and would give me a great defense for one of the CAs that is saying they can't / won't give me a signed letter because I may go and try to get credit showing that I'm making payments on this account, when in actuality I haven't made any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by fixerupper

They can put on the report "making payments"? That's a new one on me and would give me a great defense for one of the CAs that is saying they can't / won't give me a signed letter because I may go and try to get credit showing that I'm making payments on this account, when in actuality I haven't made any.

</blockquote>

That's it, anything that is inaccurate or different from the last time. If you try to dispute the same thing twice is when you seem to get probelms.

If you ever dispute something and you can't figure out on what grounds to dispute again, writh a PI, claiming your writes to a procedure and names, then find something wrong there. I'll build more on that later, but with a little imagination you can always redispute, it may take a few times before you get lucky.

Now, sometimes they verify electronically, I don't know much about that yet, but I'm brainstorming on a PI letter that will force them to tell me how they verified and if it is automatic, claim there machine is FAULTY, then force them to drop it or verify it with the name of the person at the CA/OC and threaten them with "its a federal offense to report inaccurate info".

ADSOFT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by Swede

<blockquote>Originally posted by ADSOFT

... That's exactly my point! I'm trying to avoid going to Court, yet building a paper-trail along the way, and staying out of the frivoulas arena. And, becoming comfortable saying its "not mine" is the basic tool that is going to get you their.

</blockquote>

What I mean with "missing the point" is that you need to create a strong case, giving the CRA's the impression that you hold all the cards and that they're better off deleting than battling with you. A dispute as not mine + a procedural investigation request will not do that. Don't forget the provision in the FCRA that states that they have the right to label you as frivolous and that the procedural provision states:

(iii) a notice that, if requested by the consumer, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information shall be provided to the consumer by the agency, including the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available

You need to remember that these companies have been sued MANY times and they know thatif they can show "reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuraacy" they stand a strong chance to win in court. I know that you're trying to avoid court as most of us here but you don't want them calling your bluff.

Also, don't forget that if you threaten to sue TU, they'll put you in "special handling department" whereas EQ will freeze your report for you and all creditors. You don't need that BS esp. if your case is not very strong.

[Edit by Swede on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 @ 09:21 AM]

</blockquote>

The debate on the "RESONABLE PART" continued during the week. The text in the FCRA says:

(iii) a notice that, if requested by the consumer, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information shall be provided to the consumer by the agency, including the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available;

Now, the way I see it, if somebody is publishing incorrect information about you,that is DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER, is it "unreasonable" for you to fully investigate as to the source of that information, that is your right. I believe you have legal right to know who is publishing erronous info about you!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by ADSOFT

Now, the way I see it, if somebody is publishing incorrect information about you,that is DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER, is it "unreasonable" for you to fully investigate as to the source of that information, that is your right. I believe you have legal right to know who is publishing erronous info about you!!

</blockquote>

Who is is the company name, i.e. Cap 1, it's not an individual at Cap 1, it's Cap 1 as a company. I don't understand what you're getting at here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Originally posted by Swede

<blockquote>Originally posted by ADSOFT

Now, the way I see it, if somebody is publishing incorrect information about you,that is DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER, is it "unreasonable" for you to fully investigate as to the source of that information, that is your right. I believe you have legal right to know who is publishing erronous info about you!!

</blockquote>

Who is is the company name, i.e. Cap 1, it's not an individual at Cap 1, it's Cap 1 as a company. I don't understand what you're getting at here.

</blockquote>

Well, what I'm getting at who ever CO or CA or CRA, or "some piece of faulty equipment" or "some information that has not been updated" or "some faulty operation", that is putting something on your CR it's defamation of character and it is NOT unreasonable for you to keep disputing and investing until you reach the source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.