dispute w/ OC

[marohan]

I disputed with the O.C a charge off i paid with mbna that is now boa using the dispute with original creditor letter. i received letter stating "your account was opened on [date,] and settled in full on [date] we report to the 3 major credit agencies and your report should read account legally paid in full for less than full balance"

#1These dates are different on my credit reports

#2They changed the account number

#3 they did not provide me with records of this account

What should i do now?

[bigjohnstud4200]

I disputed with the O.C a charge off i paid with mbna that is now boa using the dispute with original creditor letter. i received letter stating "your account was opened on [date,] and settled in full on [date] we report to the 3 major credit agencies and your report should read account legally paid in full for less than full balance"

#1These dates are different on my credit reports

#2They changed the account number

#3 they did not provide me with records of this account

What should i do now?

Reply back and ask for copies of the statements and the contract and dispute with the CRA's. If they are reporting/verifying 2 different things, it's a violation.

[marohan]

Thank you for your quick response, I iniatially disputed account was not mine, should i write to cra same thing or use a different dispute?

[TSorad]

I just had luck with a charge off account from capital one that I paid/settled back in 2003. I disputed it with each of the cra but it kept coming back verified. Last week I finally called Equifax and said I need to start a new dispute because I asked capital one for the records and they didn't have so I was curious as to how Equifax was coming back verified. She told me all about how they don't call and they use stupid codes to verify.

After arguing for about 20 mins I said I want to dispute and get the method of verification. She asked for the number to the person I spoke to (which I didn't speak to anyone) so I just gave them the 800 number on the back of my new capital one card.

Came back deleted from Equfiax, hope I can do the same for the other cra.

[bigjohnstud4200]

I just had luck with a charge off account from capital one that I paid/settled back in 2003. I disputed it with each of the cra but it kept coming back verified. Last week I finally called Equifax and said I need to start a new dispute because I asked capital one for the records and they didn't have so I was curious as to how Equifax was coming back verified. She told me all about how they don't call and they use stupid codes to verify.

After arguing for about 20 mins I said I want to dispute and get the method of verification. She asked for the number to the person I spoke to (which I didn't speak to anyone) so I just gave them the 800 number on the back of my new capital one card.

Came back deleted from Equfiax, hope I can do the same for the other cra.

Do you know if Capital 1 still has your records?

[TSorad]

I really don't know, it was an account that went into collections back in 01 then I paid the charge off in 03. I paid it through a collection agency. I really doubt that they would have any information at their basic 800 number on the back of my card that I provided.

I'm pretty sure they would have to be transfered to the collection/charge off department?? I have no idea.

I doubt equifax even called. Doesn't matter if they have the records, it was deleted

If you are thinking about doing it, worth a shot. Worse thing that could happen is get verfied again?

[Drew]

Reply back and ask for copies of the statements and the contract and dispute with the CRA's. If they are reporting/verifying 2 different things, it's a violation.

I been meaning to ask you bigjohn, assuming you're not completely aware of my current situation with Capital One, the TL's on my CR's don't match, but all seem to come back verified everytime. Do I need to personally send Capital One a dispute letter with a warning to correct their TL's, before I actually hold them accountable for any violation?

[merkurfan]

Yes, you have to prove they knew about it, and did nothing. Disputing with the CRA is one way (more than once with each CRA) or once and sending them a dispute with OC letter that points it out.

I just sent of a very, very, stern ITS to a different OC for a CC that has been verified twice, and they ignored my dispute letter. I got them on 3 violations. 15 U.S.C. § 1681n for willful noncompliance (twice!) and 1681s-2((1) of the FCRA for failing to properly investigate the disputed credit information.

There is case law to support my use of 1681s-2..

They are reporting anything from me being a steller customer who always pays on time (right up until last month!) to one that blew town on them and stopped paying in 8/01

[Drew]

Yes, you have to prove they knew about it, and did nothing. Disputing with the CRA is one way (more than once with each CRA) or once and sending them a dispute with OC letter that points it out.

I just sent of a very, very, stern ITS to a different OC for a CC that has been verified twice, and they ignored my dispute letter. I got them on 3 violations. 15 U.S.C. § 1681n for willful noncompliance (twice!) and 1681s-2((1) of the FCRA for failing to properly investigate the disputed credit information.

There is case law to support my use of 1681s-2..

They are reporting anything from me being a steller customer who always pays on time (right up until last month!) to one that blew town on them and stopped paying in 8/01

Interesting.

Alright, so let me get this straight: You recommend disputing with the CRA's atleast twice and disputing directly with the OC before I consider forwarding an ITS letter? Bear in mind, I have disputed with the CRA more than twice.

In your specific situation, did the OC not respond to your request for an investigation? Which might mean 'willfull noncompliance', but I'm not sure.

Also, can you site that case law?

[merkurfan]

well.. they responded, with a letter asking for information (SSN and what not) that was already contained in my first dispute. So I ignored it as many other people do.

I have them on willfull noncompliance due to the disputes (wrong amount/status twice) and my dispute with O/C letter that flat out told them, "hey, this stuff is wrong" and included a print out from my reports. They have been told via the disputes and a CMRRR letter that they are reporting incorrectly and they chose to ignore it and actually post a payment to TU in a attempt to re-age the account.

[bigjohnstud4200]

I think I pretty much agree with merkurfan on this.

[Drew]

well.. they responded, with a letter asking for information (SSN and what not) that was already contained in my first dispute. So I ignored it as many other people do.

I have them on willfull noncompliance due to the disputes (wrong amount/status twice) and my dispute with O/C letter that flat out told them, "hey, this stuff is wrong" and included a print out from my reports. They have been told via the disputes and a CMRRR letter that they are reporting incorrectly and they chose to ignore it and actually post a payment to TU in a attempt to re-age the account.

Okay, so my next step would be to send the original creditor a dispute letter advising them of the non-corresponding credit information. I would think that if they did provide you with a payment history thereafter, and it didn't match 'one or more' of your credit reports, they would be in violation for reporting inaccurate information in the first place wouldn't they?

[Drew]

I am thinking about sending something like this:

Attn: FCRA Compliance Officer

This notice is being sent pursuant to the reporting of a delinquent account with XXXX. In accordance with my rights under the FDCPA, I have previously disputed the validity and assignment of this debt with the assignee of this account, but received no response. However, immediately following my dispute, all three credit bureaus were reporting the account as a “lost or stolen card”. Thereafter, I decided to dispute this account directly with the three national credit bureaus, but to my astonishment, found that it came back “verified”. According to the FCRA, as amended by the FACTA act, you are required to notify me of the insertion of negative listings and I did not receive one such notification.

Since I was never provided proper verification, I am now requesting an investigation on this account. I have reason to believe that the information being reported is either not my debt or not correct representation of my debt. For example, the individual entries found on my credit reports do not completely correspond with one another. I am confident that your company is duly aware of the FCRA regulations, as it applies to “Data Furnishing” and “Duties of Furnishers” upon notice of dispute.

Examples of non-corresponding credit information includes:

· TransUnion solely reporting the account as “Closed”; Experian and Equifax reporting “Derogatory”

· Equifax solely reporting a “Payment Amount”; TransUnion and Experian reporting none

· Experian and Equifax reporting a “Past Due Balance”; TransUnion reporting none

· Experian and Equifax reporting different “Number of Late Payments”; TransUnion does not apply

Inaccuracies like these have been detrimental to my credit profile and you are hereby put on notice for your repeated violations of § FCRA 623 (a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.

If the violations are found to be in willful noncompliance of the FCRA under Section 616 (a)(1)(A), the violator will be penalized the amount of the individual's actual damages or a fine ranging from $100 to $1,000 per violation-- whichever amount is greater. Section 616 (2) allows the court to assess punitive damages against the violator, and Section 616 (3) allows for the assessment of the individual's attorneys' fees as well. Under Section 621 ©(1)((iii), a defendant sued for an FCRA violation under state law may be fined up to $1,000 for each willful or negligent violation. These fines are in addition to the federal penalties.

I am sure a prestigious company like XXXX recognizes the importance of following FCRA regulations, but seeing as how you “verified” this non-corresponding credit information, makes me curious about what kinds of records you may have on this alleged account. Under the new FACTA laws, you are required to conduct an investigation on this account, and I am now requesting it. I will also seek legal action under § FCRA 623 ( for violations of the FCRA, if you do not comply and respond to me with the results of the investigation in 30 days.

In order to clear up this matter, I would like to see a signed contract with XXXX and a complete payment history for me to verify the information against my credit reports. If you do not respond with the results of the investigation (as is required per the FCRA), I will assume you have no documentation and therefore you were negligent in providing the credit bureaus with accurate information. At this point, you would also be in violation of the FCRA merely for not responding within the 30-day period.

To avoid a lawsuit, I suggest correcting or removing this listing from my credit reports and forwarding a “Certificate of Destruction,” in case you cannot provide the requested information. If your company fails to comply with the requests of this investigation, I will be forced to seek legal action.

[bigjohnstud4200]

I am thinking about sending something like this:

My two suggestions:

1) The second sentence mentions FDCPA, which the OC's are not subject to.

2) It sounds a little "credit repair'ish". I would suggest simply mentioning the need for complete records and signatures and what you are saying are reporting as inaccurate. I have a feeling that you want to be able to get this account either deleted or catch them in violations that you can use against them. The way you've worded the letter may give them enough warning to know that you are not kidding and you might really sue leaving them to "fix" the inaccuracies and leaving you with nothing but a "correct" derog account that you can't do anything with. IMO, I would give them just enough info to catch them with there pants down on.

[Drew]

My two suggestions:

1) The second sentence mentions FDCPA, which the OC's are not subject to.

2) It sounds a little "credit repair'ish". I would suggest simply mentioning the need for complete records and signatures and what you are saying are reporting as inaccurate. I have a feeling that you want to be able to get this account either deleted or catch them in violations that you can use against them. The way you've worded the letter may give them enough warning to know that you are not kidding and you might really sue leaving them to "fix" the inaccuracies and leaving you with nothing but a "correct" derog account that you can't do anything with. IMO, I would give them just enough info to catch them with there pants down on.

Although I am aware that original creditors are not subject to the FDCPA, I thought I would mention it as a failed attempt to get validation through one of their assignees. I mentioned this because I've called them directly, but all they've done is transfer me to the CA.

I have to agree with you on the "wording," because it does seem like I'm giving them an opportunity to correct their negative listings upfront. So, we're in agreement that this is attempt to get records that I can use against them on the inaccurate credit reporting? For instance, if they do not have records, they must delete the TL, but in case they do, I can use it against them on a ITS letter as my next form of correspondence?

[skybluepink]

check check

[Drew]

Deleted for content.