Jump to content

Lyssarene Credit Repair


Recommended Posts

Here is what successes I have had thus far :


1) Sears, charge off

2) Receivables performance

3) LVNV funding

4) Arrow (one of them, it was a duplicate with Asset)

5) Old addresses

6) quite a few inquiries on TU and EQ, letter out to EX w/ fraud alert

7) ex husband name


Goodwills sent to both Ford and ABN AMRO for lates over 2 years ago. Both refuse to delete. Letter currently out to Ford to reconsider. ABN - will get back to them in the future

- Asset is still giving me problems but they are violating quite frequently now. Sent another dispute to all 3 CRA on Saturday, pending them to reverify then will send ITS for DTPA TX listing out all violations


1) above Ford Goodwill

2) TXU, they have agreed to delete just pending it to get done. They also have it listed twice on TU so should boost scores a good bit - letter sent to them Saturday reminding of delete and requesting it be done asap

3) Asset above on reverification w/ CRA

4) Arrow, CMRRR sent out Saturday

-- and I think I have a few various disputes on small old lates pending.

5) MOV to EX/CSC on an old late account they verified in less than 24 hours but OC can't provide any info because it is so old

Current derogatory:

TU = 4, Arrow, Asset, TXU X 2

EX = 4 Arrow, Asset, TXU, HSBC (asset OC)

EQ = 4 Arrow, Asset, TXU, HSBC (asset OC)

Other lates from over 2 years ago, not reporting as bad but they are still there and I am sure calculate into the score.

Current good open TL's:

1) mortgage

2) Hooters MC (new)

3) Target (new not yet reporting)

4) Cap1

5) BOA

6) Walmart

- all have ZERO balance except mortgage and BOA, it stays about 20%. I use it for hotel points so everything gets charged and I just pay off.

Current FAKO scores are in signature with increases since 06/04 when this all began. FAKO's from TC

TU = 666 = fair

EX = 643 = fair

EQ = 602 = between poor and fair

What TC says I need to improve to improve score:

TU = recently established collection account (TXU, letter out); too many delinquent accounts; not enough debt experience ( not sure how old accounts have to be to get rid of this)

EX = too many late payments, too many inquiries, too many derogatory accounts,

EQ = not enough debt experience, too many late payments, recently a late payment posted (this would be Asset and their violations)

SO that is my credit repair journey thus far --- hope it helps someone with hope it can be done and scores raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OK been out of town and ran credit today

Inquiries that were *b* off of TU are back :(

TU also deleted my double mortgage reporting (which had raised score) so my score (FAKO) took a tumble. GRRRRR

TU also deleted old names and addresses.

TU appears to have on their own corrected accounts that were listed as open to now closed (which is correct but..)

SO -- TU score took a tumble do to corrections. All is good though except the inquiries, not sure why they came back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

1 more inquiry deleted from EQ - and I didn't dispute it. Not sure why/how it dropped off but it did.

TU - still inquiries on file (ones that came back after B) - not concerned

EX - sent ltr for fraud alert and to dispute inquiries, no response as of yet.

Arrow - current DV out via CMRRR, pending response

Asset - remains on TU and EX, letters sent to both CRA w/ copy of CMRRR attached. Asset again updated report on 08/01/2007. BBB, AG, FTC complaints filed this past week, pending response.

Target finally reporting on EX - pending to report on TU/EQ

Mortgage hasn't updated since May 2007 w/ payment history. Not sure why but hopefully they will catch up.

Sent letter to TXU, received in mail a copy of bill from 2002. Not sure if this is their response to letter or not but they had verbally agreed to delete and now not doing it. <sigh> Will have to resend to them since letter didn't get desired response.

Afraid there is not much more I can do except wait the time out for things to move. I only have the big boys left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not patient and this is making it worse!

OK - TXU -- sent email this morning to their customer service and also sending via hard copy. No CMRRR as they have been responding. This time in the letter I advised I am looking into their violations of TFC, FCRA, DTPA - see if this gets their attention. If not, next will be ITS and CMRRR for their failure to update as disputed and incorrect reporting info. Still shows as installment account, shows as unpaid collection (was paid and they agree it was) and dates are incorrect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Target finally is reporting to all 3 -- EQ lost 3 pts for the new account.

TXU is being a pain in the arse. Although they originally agreed to delete and state the account was not supposed to be there -- it still remains. We had an email volley going on Friday in which they have basically said, we sent you the info that it had been paid, it is up to you to relay that to the CRA. Hmmm, I don't think that is going to get them very far, so the saga continues.

Letters sent to all 3 CRA on TXU to be removed and disputed as inaccurate w/ CC to TXU on Friday. We shall see what happens now.

My mortgage hasn't updated since May - not sure what is up with that. I read some where that some only report every quarter, so I will give it time to come up to date but I would think the continued positive history would be a good thing score wise. It has always been current so it is a good one.

Asset still remains on 2 reports. BBB/AG/FTC complaints filed over a week ago - They do continue to violate about every 2 weeks with updates on the CR. Good luck to them. :lol:

OC related to Asset - shows charge off/ reporint on EX/EQ only. TL's differ from each other. Pending Asset's move to dispute this one.

Arrow -- they have received DV, have updated CR. Now listing as installment account and reporting lates of 120 days. Again - good luck to them in the long run.

EQ only - chargeoff account from Speigal - May 2001 shows 90 days late. I know I disputed this with CRA EQ but nothing noted and doesn't appear to be verified. Will follow up as this is CSC and geeze, they take forever.

Those are my remaining, all from 2001/2002. Minus FMC, not sure how to handle them anymore since I have disputed lates and they basically told me to FOAD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cover letter to the underwriter that has been used in the past...

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please find the enclosed copy of a letter sent this date to name of third party subject to TFC, in city, state. The Texas Secretary of State has indicated that your offices provide the coverage in the form of a surety bond that is required under the relevant portions of the Texas Finance Code, and that your bond coverage took effect on or about date.

Notice is being afforded to your offices so that you may be aware of a potential claim against the bond should the matter move to litigation. The enclosed materials will provide you with a synopsis of the facts at issue, but in a nutshell, name of company is attempting to collect on a matter that has been in dispute with the original creditor (name of OC) as recently as two weeks ago. The underlying amount is so old as to be beyond the statute of limitations in the State of Texas for any person to pursue via litigation. Despite my having exercised my rights under the Texas Finance Code within a timely fashion, name of company has opted to disregard relevant portions of the statute and initiated their attempts to collect on a matter that they should reasonably have known through the due diligence conducted prior to the portfolio purchase was disputed.

As your staff is very likely aware, Texas law provides that a claim may be made against the bond. No action is required by your offices at this time, although I am certainly amenable to discussions pertaining to settlement in the event that your company opts to intervene on behalf of your client.

If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the address reflected below.

There are other variations that I have used and there is not one set template. Quite frankly, I am a firm believer in ALWAYS making sure a letter is tailored to the task at hand.

To Whom it May Concern:

Your offices are reporting an outstanding amount to the credit bureaus in the amount of $XXX.00, with the above account number appearing in the credit report prepared by BUREAU. To date, there has been no correspondence received from your offices. I nonetheless maintain the position that there are no amounts due or owing to you or to any other entity in the claimed amount.

At no time have I entered into any contractual arrangements with name of third party, nor can this matter be claimed to have been a collection since date 1 yet opened in date 2. Additional reporting infractions occur in that name of third party was aware of a dispute raised electronically through Experian as the steps were taken to have noted the tradeline as being in a state of dispute. However, the tradeline has now been recorded as disputed for more than thirty days, with an update being made to Experian during date 3.

That update represents continued collection activity in violation of relevant statutes. For the purposes of litigation, claims will be limited to the prohibited actions addressed by the Texas Finance Code at Section 392. As you have been unable to validate this matter within a thirty day period, there is a requirement that the tradeline be modified as requested by the consumer. In this instance, that modification is a complete deletion as any other reporting is inaccurate on its face.

I am reasonably certain that your staff is aware of the current position of many courts that continuing to report a tradeline is viewed as continuing collection activities. I am also reasonably certain that your staff is aware of the requirements of the Texas Finance Code pertaining to the reporting of matters that are disputed. In particular, I would again point you in the direction of Section 392.202 which references the duties of the collector upon notification of the matter being in dispute. There are a number of areas in which the provisions of the Texas Finance Code mirror federal statutes that would govern this issue.

In addition to the reporting requirements incumbent upon third-party entities, Texas law also contains a bonding requirement. A search of the list of bonded agencies provided to me by the Legal Support Unit/ Statutory Documents Section of the Secretary of State did support that a bond was in place at the time your office claims to have reported the file. Records reflect that the bond is underwritten by underwriting company (policy number) and involvement of their claims personnel has been held in abeyance pending your compliance with the issues in this letter.

Absent a validation of the claim within the thirty days specified in Texas law, any tradelines reported to any credit reporting agency that pertain to this claim are to be deleted. Failure to do so places me at risk of irreparable harm and is violative of the requirements of both state and federal law that reporting of credit be done in an accurate manner. It stands to reason that a matter that cannot be validated cannot also be considered as accurately reported as a tradeline.

It is expected that within thirty days from the date of your receipt of this letter, as evidenced by the delivery date on the Return Receipt card, your offices will have either provided the documents required for validation of both the claim or this matter will have been closed and the tradeline deleted.

Nothing in this letter authorizes a “hard pull” or a “soft pull” of my credit information. The account number you have reported to a credit bureau is included and should provide you with sufficient information with which to identify me in your existing records. There should be no basis for you to request additional information from me in the validation process. It is not incumbent upon me, as the injured party, to build your files for you, nor should I pay a penalty in the form of a reduced score for your attempts to reconstruct records which you should already have possessed prior to making any claim. If such retrieval is discovered to have occurred, it will be evaluated for action as a non-permissible access of the report as well as retaliatory actions for the exercise of rights provided to the consumer under both state and federal law.

Please be cognizant of the fact that venue for any action will be in accordance with the provisions of the prevailing statutes of the State of Texas. There are no federal questions being raised in this matter and any attempt to remove an action to the United States Western District Court will be challenged. Damages will also be sought under the controlling provisions of the Business and Commerce Code, and I would remind you that those damages are subject under Texas law to a trebling upon a showing of gross negligence. Upon a favorable finding in the Travis County courts, claim will be made against the bond.

Except as pertains to the production of documents responsive to the validation, there is no reason for your office to contact me. Under no circumstances is communication to occur via telephone, to include my place of employment, as such telephonic contact is inconvenient. All communications shall be in writing and directed to the address of record as it appears on the preceding page.

Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated.

In this particular case, we did not tip the hand that my office would handle the litigation. The matter was resolved within 48 hours of the other party having received the letter.

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.