Jump to content

An Odd Case


2001Badyear
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is a bit unusual and have read nothing on the board like it.....

I had an old TL from X-Country (OC) that went away years ago. DOFD early 2001. About mid 2006 Applied Bank started showing up on my reports and research showed it's the "new" name for X-Country. Applied has hit my account every month since then, as if new default, which would not be the case. X-Country would have been scheduled to fall off by March 2008, by DOFD.

I disputed with all three CRA's as not mine, since I never had an account with Applied Bank and can't be expected to know who they are, I don't think. TU immediately removed the TL and my score shot up to over 800.

Just received a verification from EX yesterday!! Even though they verified score went up 80 points (760)?? Have not heard from EQ yet.

Here's the problem:

I had received collection notices from a CA starting some year plus ago, and did not respond, but they have clearly turned over to a CA. CA though has never been on any of the CRA reports.

Applied is on the reports and that would make them the OC, correct?

But how do I know that? Although they show a CO, they still show a balance. How can that be? If with a CA, and a CO by the OC, doesn't that mean balance should be $0?

It seems to me that I should communicate with Applied, but do I handle them as an OC or CA? Again, I never had an account with Applied.

I think it should be a DV, but if they are the OC, renamed, should it be an "investigation" letter? I want to get them out in the open and reporting correctly, or not at all.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a bit unusual and have read nothing on the board like it.....

I had an old TL from X-Country (OC) that went away years ago. DOFD early 2001. About mid 2006 Applied Bank started showing up on my reports and research showed it's the "new" name for X-Country. Applied has hit my account every month since then, as if new default, which would not be the case. X-Country would have been scheduled to fall off by March 2008, by DOFD.

I disputed with all three CRA's as not mine, since I never had an account with Applied Bank and can't be expected to know who they are, I don't think. TU immediately removed the TL and my score shot up to over 800.

Just received a verification from EX yesterday!! Even though they verified score went up 80 points (760)?? Have not heard from EQ yet.

Here's the problem:

I had received collection notices from a CA starting some year plus ago, and did not respond, but they have clearly turned over to a CA. CA though has never been on any of the CRA reports.

Applied is on the reports and that would make them the OC, correct?

But how do I know that? Although they show a CO, they still show a balance. How can that be? If with a CA, and a CO by the OC, doesn't that mean balance should be $0?

It seems to me that I should communicate with Applied, but do I handle them as an OC or CA? Again, I never had an account with Applied.

I think it should be a DV, but if they are the OC, renamed, should it be an "investigation" letter? I want to get them out in the open and reporting correctly, or not at all.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Similar situation here with Discover apparently selling to Providian but Providian is actually showing as a positive tradeline. Been contacted by one CA on the account but have managed to make them disappear (for now) with DV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost wish I had the CA reporting, so I could just DV them. In this case I only have a "renamed OC" and only know that by looking them up.

I just want to get them on record as to who they actually are (X-Country rebranded) so I can use the DOFD of that if needed in the future. As it stands, this is a clever way of re-aging by making it appear to be something new. By leaving the CA off the reports it's hard to figure out how to go after this.

The other point is showing a CO with a balance when I know it's with a CA. I'm fairly certain that has to be a $0 balance once they Charge Off the account.

Just not quite sure how to proceed on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost wish I had the CA reporting, so I could just DV them. In this case I only have a "renamed OC" and only know that by looking them up.

I just want to get them on record as to who they actually are (X-Country rebranded) so I can use the DOFD of that if needed in the future. As it stands, this is a clever way of re-aging by making it appear to be something new. By leaving the CA off the reports it's hard to figure out how to go after this.

The other point is showing a CO with a balance when I know it's with a CA. I'm fairly certain that has to be a $0 balance once they Charge Off the account.

Just not quite sure how to proceed on this one.

Sounds like there's only 1 option since there is no CA reporting. FCRA 623.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nascar,

I think you're right that an "investigation" letter is the only option, since they appear to be the OC.

I'm tempted to DV them first though, as though I "think" they are a CA. They will not likley respond to this and I can send the OC the investigation letter.

It just seems to me that by sending Applied the letter, I've established that I know who they are.....I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the thing with FCRA 623 letters...

it is not just for an OC. It's for ANYONE who reports on your CR. The only catch is you have to dispute with the CRAs and have it come back as verified FIRST. Then you send them the 523 investigation request, and they have 30 days to get back to you - or it's FCRA violation.

In your situation, badyear - by all means you can DV them. But don't expect them to respond. But the thing is - you NEVER have a "new OC".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the thing with FCRA 623 letters...

it is not just for an OC. It's for ANYONE who reports on your CR. The only catch is you have to dispute with the CRAs and have it come back as verified FIRST. Then you send them the 523 investigation request, and they have 30 days to get back to you - or it's FCRA violation.

In your situation, badyear - by all means you can DV them. But don't expect them to respond. But the thing is - you NEVER have a "new OC".

Amerikaner and Nascar, thanks for the information. I'll send the 623 and see what happens. Have disputed with all three CRA's and TU deleted, EX verified and have yet to hear from EQ. Should I wait for that result first or work it from the EX verified report?

Thanks again guys,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very interested since these rat b^%tards are doing the same to me. I disputed it with TU and EX as "not mine". Never made it to EQ. TU removed it EX verified. I then wrote a letter to Applied telling them I never had an account with you please remove it from my report. They sent me a snotty letter back saying, "We can't remove it per FCRA as it charged off in 2005." Which is utter BS. I did have an account with CCB, but I paid it off for less than full balance in like 2002 or there about. It charged off sometime in 2001. It looks like they aren't even acknowledging the payment and they're trying to get the full balance out of me. Which is again crap and since they're lying to get it by claiming an at least 6 year old debt is only 3 years old. Putting it back into SOL in PA, well, I'm not giving them a cent, ever.

Anyway, I sent them a letter back, with a copy of the previous letter, saying, "apparently you didn't get a copy of my previous letter or possibly you've misunderstood. I asked you to remove incorrect and fraudelent information from my credit report because I do not and have never had an account with your company. Just so there's no mistake I am now requesting that you investigate this account in accordance with section 623 of the FCRA. When your investigation determines (as I already know) that I do not and have never had an account with you I anticipate that you will expeditiously remove this tradeline from all my credit reports."

I don't know if this will work, but the snotty, condescending tone of the rat bas%^$d who wrote me the letter just got under my skin. If I don't get my desired response I'm reporting these sh*&heads to the AG of both PA and Delaware. They've already gotten in trouble with PA for some of their credit granting and collecting shenigans, so hopefully that will put a little fire under them. I did complain to the FTC about them re-aging accounts. They've done it as Applied on my credit reports since July. They had me in charge off status for July and months previous and then they indicated a payment in September. I have the hard copies of the reports.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very interested since these rat b^%tards are doing the same to me. I disputed it with TU and EX as "not mine". Never made it to EQ. TU removed it EX verified. I then wrote a letter to Applied telling them I never had an account with you please remove it from my report. They sent me a snotty letter back saying, "We can't remove it per FCRA as it charged off in 2005." Which is utter BS. I did have an account with CCB, but I paid it off for less than full balance in like 2002 or there about. It charged off sometime in 2001. It looks like they aren't even acknowledging the payment and they're trying to get the full balance out of me. Which is again crap and since they're lying to get it by claiming an at least 6 year old debt is only 3 years old. Putting it back into SOL in PA, well, I'm not giving them a cent, ever.

Anyway, I sent them a letter back, with a copy of the previous letter, saying, "apparently you didn't get a copy of my previous letter or possibly you've misunderstood. I asked you to remove incorrect and fraudelent information from my credit report because I do not and have never had an account with your company. Just so there's no mistake I am now requesting that you investigate this account in accordance with section 623 of the FCRA. When your investigation determines (as I already know) that I do not and have never had an account with you I anticipate that you will expeditiously remove this tradeline from all my credit reports."

I don't know if this will work, but the snotty, condescending tone of the rat bas%^$d who wrote me the letter just got under my skin. If I don't get my desired response I'm reporting these sh*&heads to the AG of both PA and Delaware. They've already gotten in trouble with PA for some of their credit granting and collecting shenigans, so hopefully that will put a little fire under them. I did complain to the FTC about them re-aging accounts. They've done it as Applied on my credit reports since July. They had me in charge off status for July and months previous and then they indicated a payment in September. I have the hard copies of the reports.

Mag,

I'll keep you posted as to what happens with me. See this post of letter I'm about to send them (below). Part of the reason I'm doing it now is to get them out into the open on this and force a paper trail on them, in the event they try something stupid in the future.

http://debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=280606

Trust me I love a fight and have taken on legal battles on principle before with great success. I know I can force them off in next few months but kind of want to smack them first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You go, Dog!! These guys aren't trying to collect from me and since it's a small debt (low $200) I don't expect them to bother. I resent being jacked by them. This account hasn't reported for years and years and last spring after a couple of mortgage inquiries they showed up. I've had a couple of these types of things show up for small amounts. They're just taking their chances that someone looking for a mortgage will pay them to get rid of them.

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.