Jump to content

Less than 10 hrs to investigate!


Recommended Posts

Last NIGHT, around dinner time, I did an on-line dispute of a Providian CO on EXP. This morning in my email, was a results email time-stamped at 4:00 am. Could someone please tell me how in the hell they could do a investigation in less than 10 hours at night??????

They actually Updated the acct~~~~they changed the Reported Since date from 6/2000 to 4/2000. The really funny thing is the DO is 12/2001. So according to them, they started reporting this account on DHs CR over a year and a half before he had even opened it. WTF!!!!!

I understand they used e-Oscar, but seriously! How can they possibly think that I am going to agree that they actually investigated anything in less than 10 hrs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their computer asked Providian's computer, "does this look right?"

Providian's computer said, "Yep."

Whole process probably took less than a second to complete.

heh, how's that for an "investigation".

Yup, that's how it works. All they do is ask the creditor to regurgitate what it reported, as if that constitutes an investigation.

So let's say someone at Providian makes a typo and puts your current balance at $4,100 instead of $410. You dispute. CRA's computer says to Providian's computer "what's the balance?" Providian's computer says "$4,100." CRA tells you "we investigated, and it was verified." In other words, "THEY REPEATED WHAT THEY SAID THE FIRST TIME." And since the creditor's word is gospel, the consumer has to jump through hoops to prove he/she is not lying.

I've often said that it would be interesting if the law worked like that for the rest of us. We break the law, and deny it. All we have to do is repeat ourselves, and our denial stands as fact. Bank: "You robbed us!" Me: "No I didn't." Bank: "Cops, investigate her!" Cops: "Did you rob the bank?" Me: "Like I said, no, I did not." Cops: "Sorry, bank. We investigated and she says she didn't do it. End of story."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, that's how it works. All they do is ask the creditor to regurgitate what it reported, as if that constitutes an investigation.

So let's say someone at Providian makes a typo and puts your current balance at $4,100 instead of $410. You dispute. CRA's computer says to Providian's computer "what's the balance?" Providian's computer says "$4,100." CRA tells you "we investigated, and it was verified." In other words, "THEY REPEATED WHAT THEY SAID THE FIRST TIME."

LNY, that's exactly what they do and it is wrong. The law is designed for them to actually Investigate for honest mistakes or human errors. That's why they are allowed 30 Days with a 15 Day extension, in some cases. Has anyone noticed how most, if not ALL, CRAs, OCs and CAs NEVER ever follow the law, and frustrate any and all attempts for legal Disputes? THERE MUST BE A BETTER WAY AND WE SHALL FIND IT! ::linedancers::

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a better analogy. After talking to all reps at all 3, here is my conversation. always using a nice, general tone, not angry or offensive.

i say "so basically what you are telling me is that (insert CRA here) does not really care if the info is correct or not, if they did, wouldnt they ask for verification? She said, unfort the FTC does not require us to get that information.

I said, well then, if i were to get behind the wheel of a great big giant tracker trailer 18 wheeler in NYC, and back it up to a wherehouse and stay in the front seat while things were being loaded into the back of my truck. if i then, pulled away and drove across country with that load of stuff in the back of my truck, not even bothering to check the contents. whats in there, animals? drugs? human trafficking? weapons? who knows? i certainly dont..im simply just "reporting what im given".

so now, if i get stopped along the way by a cop, and they say "hey, whatcha carrying in theback of that their truck?" I can just say. oh officer i have no idea, i really dont care actually. i just get paid to get in the truck, drive it aross the country. in fact, i stopped earlier in chicago, someone called my cel phone to tell me that i was carrying apples. i never actually got out and looked with my own eyes, I just called the guys that loaded everything up and they said "yep, its apples". I got back in my truck and continued on down the road. all I do is drive the truck man, dont care whats in it, they pay me, i drive. someone asks whats in back, i just call the people who loaded it (they pay me alot of money to haul this information sir) and ask them to verify. every time they say "yep, its apples". thats all i need to hear far as im concerned.

police officer: "well son, have you ever thought about getting confirmation of whats exactly in your truck before leaving port?" lets have a look.

oh lookie here! drugs and guns!! you've been transporting guns and drugs across state lines young man.

well sir, its not my fault, according to federal govt laws, I am not required or responsible for the actual contents. i just drive the truck (or report what im told). take it up with the people who loaded my truck, and keep in mind, they pay me ALOT of money to do this, we have great relations. so, basically im off the hook sir.

police officer "wow, you are right, how do I get in on this racket!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a better analogy. After talking to all reps at all 3, here is my conversation. always using a nice, general tone, not angry or offensive. police officer "wow, you are right, how do I get in on this racket!"

This is just one of their numerous classic RACKETEERING schemes.

The CRAs conspire with both the OCs and CAs to inflict maximum damages on Consumers because they PROFIT from the OCs and CAs Payments for Reporting AND from the Reports they subsequently get to sell.

Consumers with Poor Credit are much more profitable because we pay a lot more Interest and Fees and Creditors therefore "target" us by buying our Reports from CRAs for promos.

Maybe someday the Department of Justice will file a RICO lawsuit? FAT CHANCE huh!

Best Regards,

June

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite out of all of the boneheaded CRA claims is when EX will refuse to remove any address that's tied to a TL, even if it was reported in error and you can prove you never actually lived there. The data furnisher's word is always taken as gospel, as if they know better than you do where you have lived. The assumption ALWAYS is that the consumer is lying and the data furnisher is correct. They won't change anything without the furnisher's say-so, what does that tell you? You can supply as much proof as you want, and the CRA won't budge. Yet all the furnisher has to do is say something is or is not so, and it's accepted without question.

Like I always say, if Capital One says you lived there, then you lived there. And nothing you can do, say or prove will change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite out of all of the boneheaded CRA claims is when EX will refuse to remove any address that's tied to a TL, even if it was reported in error and you can prove you never actually lived there.

Like I always say, if Capital One says you lived there, then you lived there. And nothing you can do, say or prove will change that.

That's because Old Addresses and Name variations is one of the Data Fields most Furnishers "Verify" TLs through. If CRAs remove Old Addresses, then the CRAs must Delete the TLs tied to the address because the Furnishers can no longer "verify."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because Old Addresses and Name variations is one of the Data Fields most Furnishers "Verify" TLs through. If CRAs remove Old Addresses, then the CRAs must Delete the TLs tied to the address because the Furnishers can no longer "verify."

Only EX seems to have this draconian policy, though. I understand the whole reasoning behind it to an extent, but I do not appreciate the way it is assumed that I'm lying, and that my word cannot be trusted about where I live... only a credit card company can be trusted to know where I live.

I've had EX admit to me that an incorrect address was tied to a closed account that had since been deleted. But they still wouldn't remove it unless the furnisher--who I no longer had an account with and no longer appeared on my report--agreed to remove it. Why does someone I no longer even do business with carry more weight than I do on the subject of where I have and have not lived?

The thing that infuriates me is that the possibility of the furnisher being incorrect is never even entertained. That's the crux of the problem for me. I'm automatically wrong, but they're not wrong unless they say they're wrong. If they keep verifying their error, that's the way the cookie crumbles because THEY'RE ALWAYS RIGHT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is why s-2b violations were invented, and why the industry wants that particular part of the FCRA to be repealed.

Read my sig- you can make money off of them if you do it right.

Divemedic, I am a little bit slow. Where is your sig-? I want to make money off of them and I want to do it right. :)

Thanks,

June

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So back to me.................:twisted:

8-)

I'm actually gearing up to do a FACTA dispute on this particular TL. They are reporting different DOFMD on 4 CRs (and yes I said 4 since they are also reporting as an AU acct on my EQ which they refuse to remove).

One question, since I disputed with EQ too (and TU) it appears that they inserted 14 CO notations from 8/2005 (when they sold it) through now. Can they do that, I mean add CO notations when they don't even own it anymore? And don't they have to notify me of the insertions of negative info?

8]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So back to me.................:twisted:

8-)

I'm actually gearing up to do a FACTA dispute on this particular TL. They are reporting different DOFMD on 4 CRs (and yes I said 4 since they are also reporting as an AU acct on my EQ which they refuse to remove).

One question, since I disputed with EQ too (and TU) it appears that they inserted 14 CO notations from 8/2005 (when they sold it) through now. Can they do that, I mean add CO notations when they don't even own it anymore? And don't they have to notify me of the insertions of negative info?

8]

I have a lender that inserted 25 CO notations from 2001 (when they sold it) through 2004. They deliberately added the CO notations after I had disputed with them in 2005. May be they consider it as Updates? I cannot see how one can CO an account 25 times. On its face, that is inaccurate info being reported. But, I would still have to PROVE it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite out of all of the boneheaded CRA claims is when EX will refuse to remove any address that's tied to a TL, even if it was reported in error and you can prove you never actually lived there. The data furnisher's word is always taken as gospel, as if they know better than you do where you have lived. The assumption ALWAYS is that the consumer is lying and the data furnisher is correct.

As FlyingIFR puts it: "If a CRA needs no proof to put errors in your file, why does it take an Affidavit from God witnessed by 4 saints to correct it?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As FlyingIFR puts it: "If a CRA needs no proof to put errors in your file, why does it take an Affidavit from God witnessed by 4 saints to correct it?"

HA!!! Haven't heard him quoted in a while!! I always liked that particular quote.

Oh so my precious little Newbie is suddenly AGAINST thread-jacking??8-)

OK, OK... back to you... :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is because CO in this case is a status, not an act.

If an account has a status of "Charged off" in January, it is still "Charged off" in October.

Yeah, but it only takes one "L" with the date of the CO. There is a status, and there are updates as in EQ "Items As of Date Reported: xx/xxxx. Where the OC had willfully entered L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L (24 L's) in a single Update, (when there was only one L for years) and each with different dates, each L becomes an Act.

After the 25th L, the OC Updates without any additional Ls!!! The OC did the "L" thing after I had disputed the debt. xdancex

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.