Jump to content

Friend that has had luck with Captial One


maaj
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi there! I am new so forgive me if I posted this in the wrong forum. I am in the process of trying to clear up mine and my fiance's credit reports.

I thought BK was always the way to go until my friend told me otherwise, so here I am! I am researching, doing it the way I read........where as my friend is more haphazard about her methods, BUT IT IS WORKING FOR HER. I am a more by the "rules" type.

She had an account with Capital One that she owed around $3000. She did the whole DV process and dispute with CRA's with no luck as you all probably know.

UNTIL: She sent out a letter she got from someone. She did not even read the letter just changed the address and sent it off. It also looks like this would be an appropriate letter to send out to any "paid collection".

Next thing she knows CAPITAL ONE WAS DELETED. She was shocked and was so excited, so I actually read the letter and point out to her what all was being said i.e. "I paid _______ on _______ date and you promised to delete and you did not and threatening to sue.

The only thing I have seen different in this letter that may have really really scared them was something about a DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL. I have not seen this letter anywhere else, but thought that anyone brave enough and if they are out of the SOL, might want to look at it.

I will pass on help as I find it if it looks new because I KNOW I WILL NEED HELP!

Here is the letter:

It has come to my attention that you have placed a derogatory remark on my

credit bureau files pursuant to my having paid you what you claimed that I

owed you.

When I paid you, I relied upon the belief that you would do the honorable

thing and remove your nasty and derogatory comments from my credit bureau

files which you not only failed to do but actually changed my listing to paid

charge-off which is a far worse rating in the eyes of any potential future

creditors.

In doing so, you obviously failed to realize that the Doctrine of Estoppel

directly applies to this type of situation and is cause and more than sufficient

grounds for my pending lawsuit against you for punitive damages in whatever

amount a jury might deem appropriate for your violation of the estoppel

doctrine of law.

Here is what the Doctrine of Estoppel is and how it applies to your violations of it.

In order for the doctrine of estoppel to apply, the party of the first part (you,

the collector) must make some statement or engage in some conduct upon

which I have relied and acted upon which later proved to be to my detriment or prejudice.

In your communications with me you told me that you would update my credit

reports as soon as I had paid the debt to you. Quite naturally, I assumed and

relied upon your statement to that effect to mean that you would mark the

account as "paid as agreed" or even quite possibly remove it entirely.

I am quite confident that both you and a court of law will agree that such is a

perfectly reasonable assumption for an average debtor to make. And so upon

that assumption I agreed to pay the debt and in fact did so on (insert date here) whereupon you actually worsened my credit bureau scores and that was most definitely to my detriment and prejudice and provided me with grounds to sue you for the full amount paid plus attorney fees, court costs and whatever additional punitive damages a jury might award.

Unless you move to cure your error and remove your derogatory remarks from

my public records within 15 days of your receipt of this letter and provide

proof of your cooperation with my demand in the form of mailing me a copy of

your UDF which you transmitted to the credit bureaus demanding it's removal I shall immediately move to file against you in a court of law with jury trial

demanded.

I am quite well aware that you have a contractural agreement with the credit

bureaus which covers this problem and supposedly prevents you from

compliance with my demands but a contract which is in violation of the law is

null and void and of no force and effect whatever and therefore cannot be

enforced either by you or upon you. Your so-called contract with the credit

bureaus will not protect you for your willful violation of my rights which are

protected by the Doctrine of Estoppel.

Your failure to cure and provide me with proof of your having cured the

problem within 15 days after your proveable receipt of this letter will be

considered sufficient reason to refer this matter to the courts for their

resolution.

Sincerely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She had not paid the account. It was out of SOL. That is what I meant by haphazard. She did not even read the letter, she just sent it out. Once I read it I realized that the letter stated that she paid the account, which she really did not. So apparently Cap One did not read it either. The part which states she "paid the account" was about half way down the second page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That I am not sure of, I would think there really would not be that much if it is out of SOL, but I am new to all of this and not sure. All I know is that it WORKED TO ERASE HER CAPITAL ONE CARD after many, many, many attempts on her part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She had an account with Capital One that she owed around $3000. She did the whole DV process and dispute with CRA's with no luck as you all probably know.
What are the ODDS of Cap 1 clerks discovering this error? H---, Cap 1 clerks could not find any business records to validate the old debt.

Repercussions? Sure hope not.

But according to the very l-o-n-g, aggravating, time-consuming and USELESS DV process (as we all know), your friend should have a counterclaim for numerous FCRA violations to knock out their $3000 invalidated debt.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But according to the very l-o-n-g, aggravating, time-consuming and USELESS DV process (as we all know), your friend should have a counterclaim for numerous FCRA violations to knock out their $3000 invalidated debt.:)

Unfortunately for her, DV is a right per the FDCPA which doesn't apply to OCs (unless her state has debt collection laws that govern OCs as well). I guess that would explain why her friend's attempts to DV Cap1 have failed. And I beg to differ; the DV process is not useless. As a matter of fact, my collection accounts went from 9 to 1 due to my use of DV. The 1 account still left is a paid collection which DV has failed (of course). Yes, most would agree that the process is long, aggravating, and time-consuming; but it is by far one of the best tools that consumers have to preserve their rights which was created to protect them against deceptive practices of CAs.

So does it only work on SOL accounts?

Don't get too starry-eyed. Just b/c the SOL has run on the account doesn't mean that the OC has to remove the TL or chunk the records. SOL is a defense a consumer can use if he/she is sued. The OP's friend should consider herself to be VERY lucky. Not too many OCs throw away/misplace account records after a couple of years. Perhaps the 7yrs had run...or an employee got sloppy...or maybe Cap1 did get scared. Who knows. But it sure would be nice to know if that every time someone used this letter on an OC, the OC would tremble in their boots and delete the TL. I'm not [by any means] saying that the letter doesn't work; I just want members to understand how OCs conduct business and what is more likely to have happened than not. However, as a fair CIC member (IOW, I'm going to play the guinea pig), I'm going tweak & research this letter (b/c it is quite lengthy & I do see some issues) a great deal & try it on my paid collection and see what happens.8]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GREAT! Just keep us updated as to what happens. I could not believe she just sends stuff out without even reading, but she did and it worked and that is when I was like let me see this letter and I discovered all it said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I beg to differ; the DV process is not useless. As a matter of fact, my collection accounts went from 9 to 1 due to my use of DV. The 1 account still left is a paid collection which DV has failed (of course). Yes, most would agree that the process is long, aggravating, and time-consuming; but it is by far one of the best tools that consumers have to preserve their rights which was created to protect them against deceptive practices of CAs.
Sorry, I apologize for my "error."

I should have said, "DV may be considered as USELESS for me."

I believe that a thing (or person) may be considered as USELESS, where it does not work the way it was intended.

After two years of using the this so-called DV Process, I may consider it as being USELESS, where the furnishers of information routinely fail to follow the law to either Validate my alleged accounts or Delete their trade lines altogether, if they are unwilling or cannot. At all times, I had maintained low credit scores every month for years.

On the other hand, DV may be considered as USEFUL, whereas I may have to pay monthly due to low credit scores, I can get them on numerous violations and bring some legal action, IF I have proof of damages, time, energy and money!!!

For argument sakes: After 3 months of using my auto, which is still under manufacturer's warranty, it may be considered as USELESS, where the auto dealership fails to honor my warranty to either repair the engine problem or give me a new one (after 5 attempts and counting). At all times, I am without a vehicle that I am paying for every month.

On the other hand, my auto may be considered as USEFUL, whereas I may have to pay monthly for a vehicle (that I cannot drive), but I sure have the auto dealership on numerous violations and may bring legal action, IF I have the time, energy and money!!!

Don't get me wrong, For some strange reason, I am happy :) that we have laws (and Auto Warranties) in place, but they may be considered as USELESS where they are not adhered to by the CRAs, furnishers of information (or auto dealerships)!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michelleantoine, thank you so much for sharing with us.

Yesterday, Thursday, 03/01/2007, I sent out a copy of the letter via CMRRR.

I am fully expecting a Delete, where this OC, who plays strictly by the rules, has not Updated their trade line for 18 months or since the SOLC expired.

After full payment to OC (no CA involved), there is no new information to report, therefore no monthly "Updates"

Anyway, I am keeping my fingers and toes crossed on this. I shall update as soon as the results are in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to try it. I will let you know what happens. I am sending it to crap one and I will update as soon as I know.

At this point i have nothing to lose. It is a settled account and the email I sent to the CEO was not returned to me, and he did not answer the email.

Well you will learn if this letter is golden or just a waste of postage.

Do I send it to their legal department?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

I may give this a try. I have repaired my own credit through method's frequently mentioned on this site. However, my GF has allowed me to take a look at her credit which is in the mid 500's. She has a lot of negatives, but she has paid everything off. So not much leverage for a pay for delete. So this might work on her paid accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO the DV process is pretty useless for accounts that are outside of the 30 window (Thanks FDCPA for being so vague). In this case, most CA's take their sweet time responding, if at all.

However, VOD works well if you respond within the 30 day window.

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.