Jump to content

Okay, I DID just fall off the kumquat truck-HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!


Recommended Posts

Hello to all most knowledgeable. I am terribly confused :lolsign:

so would someone please help a sister out xshotx

when you have an oc on your cr and a ca on your cr reporting the same thing the oc is on your report for, are you going to do the following 3 things?

at the same time I might add:


2. DV CA

3.TELL OC TO KISS MY BEHIND 8) Just kidding, but DV OC as well?

I am soooooooo confused or my brain may be heading toward perm.breakdown :shock: I have run through the tons of material I have so far and maybe I am still missing something. Any help is greatly appreciated-as always :IThankYou:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I would be ok with this.. can we add this into the flow chart? :D :D ;)

You can not DV an OC as they are not held accountable by the FDCPA.

You want to ask them for proof of the debt, tell them that you know of no such account (no NOT give them account number) and see what they come back with. YOu may get lucky.... they may say they have no record of such accout.

If that doesn't work, you will probably have to settle with the OC (request they recall it from the CA) and ask for a settle for deletion. Just make sure it is all in writing. Try to avoid paying the CA and deal with the OC if you can. ((((HUGS))) hang in there and good luck! -Jenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so I can assume that I am going to:

1.dv ca

2. dispute listing with cb

3. write oc and tell them that I am not aware of an account that I had with them so send proof and while they are at it they can :censored: and then :censored: again.

Now I feel like I am back on track.

as always THANKS!!! :surlove:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK the rules regarding claiming an account is not yours changed when the FACT Act came into being. The new rules went into effect on Dec 1 '04.

Unless you submit a police report for identity theft, all the CRA will do is ask the furnisher if the info is correct. Even if they get no response from the furnisher and delete the item, they can reinsert it (with notice) at any time in the future. Only if you supply an ID Theft report are they required to ensure that the item is never reinserted.

Original creditors can label any claim of "not mine" as frivolous if you don't include an ID Theft report. All they are required to do is tell you that.

It's not as simple as it used to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That depends on many factors. If you have no leverage to use against the furnisher of the information it may be your only option. I personally find that furnisher's records-keeping has its limits and flaws. Until the FACT act started working its way through Congress, most creditors threw away the credit applications they processed after about 2 years. That could be a loop hole in the consumer's favor. I've already tried it twice so far and both times I ended up catching the furnisher in a violation that made it easier to deal with them further up the line.

So here's what I did:

AMEX - account was opened by my former employer using my SSN without my permission (this is the truth).

-Disputed as not mine with the furnisher. Explained why and asked for a copy of all the transaction history and the application that opened the account.

-They sent me a letter 20 days later saying it is my responsibility and included a copy of the "terms of use" crap that I never saw.

-I wait until 30 days has passed and then sent a letter stating that they are in violation of the FCRA for not including a copy of the application and the transaction history.

-So far they have ignored this last, but I'll explain:

The law is worded so that they can refuse and label as frivolous if you don't provide sufficient evidence to back your claim. But they must TELL YOU that it is frivolous, why it is frivolous, and what you must provide so that they will investigate. AMEX, in this case, didn't do that. In fact, by responding with what they did, they acknowledged (in their arrogance) that they knew who I was and did a half-hearted investigation but failed to comply with the documentation production as required in the law. Had they just said that they considered my dispute frivolous because it lacked a police report, then they would have been OK. Not so now.

I figure 4 out of 5 furnishers will respond the way AMEX did and not follow the letter of the law. My next step is to ITS their arses with one last chance to produce the application (which I already know they have destroyed) with an estoppel notice that failure to produce will be estopped in legal procedings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.