Ever Take a Bat to a Bees Nest??

[2001Badyear]

Have you ever thought about taking a bat and whacking a bees nest, even though you could simply walk by.......??

I know, but not in me to not go after this.

Brief history:

Applied Bank (an OC) started showing on my reports about 1-1/2 years ago and although I never had an account with them they appear to be related in some way to an account I did have. The DOFD says this drops in about 2-3 months via original OC.

Why wait? I've decided to go after them with a FCRA 623 investigation, if for no other reason than want to see what happens. They drop anyway, but want to take a bat to them for fun. No CA's have ever reported on this.

What follows is the letter in rough draft and welcome any suggestions or comments.

2001Badyear

123 Main Street

Anywhere, USA 12345

Applied Bank

800 Delaware Ave.

Wilmington, DE 19801

January 22, 2008

Re: Acct # 1234-5678-9012- xxxx (note that report does not show last 4digits) Request for Investigation of account

To Whom It May Concern:

I recently reviewed my credit reports from Experian, Equifax and TransUnion and found an entry on all three from your company. Having never heard of Applied Bank, much less ever having had an account with you, I immediately disputed this information with all three major Credit Reporting Agencies. Much to my surprise Experian came back as "verified", TransUnion came back as “Not Verified” and deleted, and I have yet to hear from Equifax. This contradictory information notwithstanding, I decided time was of the essence and this letter serves to exercise my rights under the FCRA.

Since I have disputed your Trade Lines with the Credit Reporting Agencies, and you obviously "verified" them in at least one case, I am requesting that you substantiate this alleged claim of ownership. Under the FCRA laws, you are required to conduct an investigation on this account, and I am now officially requesting it.

To that end I have attached everything I have in reference to this account, to include the original Credit Reporting Agency reports showing your specific trade lines, copies of the disputes I filed with all three Agencies, and the results of said disputes. For my part, please know that I dispute this alleged account in its entirety, due to the fact that I have never held an account with Applied Bank.

I request Applied Bank provide the following, to include, but not limited to:

Any contracts signed by me with Applied Bank, to include terms of the contract, as signed.

My alleged payment history with Applied Bank that shows a history of my use of this account, in any manner.

Any copies of checks provided by me to Applied Bank, preceding the time you claim default. Since you list this as a charged off account there must have been some history of payments.

Provide any other documents showing my alleged ownership and responsibility for this account.

I must assume that you are aware of the legal requirements for "furnishers of information" to the Credit Reporting Agencies set forth in the FCRA, and will not list them here.

I ask that you review the evidence I have provided, review any and all of the erroneous information you have provided to, and confirmed, with the Credit Reporting Agencies, and report said findings to the CRA’s. If the information you have previously reported is found to be inaccurate, wrong, or can not be verified, modify the trade line, as appropriate, delete in its entirety, or block all reporting of the item permanently.

Failure to respond to this letter will be construed as lack of evidence to verify in part or whole this claim you make. I take this very seriously and I will exercise every legal right at my disposal to pursue this to its legitimate end.

The courtesy of a reply is expected and anxiously awaited.

Woof, woof,

2001Badyear

[brokeinok]

Sounds really good to me!

[whocares]

Put that bat away....wanna get stung?

I would let it sit till it falls off, if it does not then I would send an ITS letter for failure to remove...calling attention to the account at this late date...They may decide to file or sell the claim...

BTW whats the amount?

Good luck

[Debt Guy]

It sounds like an exercise in frustration. There is absolutely no requirement they provide the stuff you have requested. The only manner in which you have such rights are in the discovery phase of litigation. You post here a lot. Surely you already know that.

[2001Badyear]

It sounds like an exercise in frustration. There is absolutely no requirement they provide the stuff you have requested. The only manner in which you have such rights are in the discovery phase of litigation. You post here a lot. Surely you already know that.

This not a CA, it's the OC that simply changed their name, from the best I can determine, and refuse to admit this, so they can change the dates and amounts to suit themselves. Not sure, but that seems at the very least to be unethical and at the very most illegal.

To be clear, I have not now, nor have I ever had any account with Allied anything. That being the case, and having communicated with someone on the board that has had the exact same issue with them and re-aging attempts I simply want them to admit who they are. Once that's established, and they refused to do so in the other case, I will then have a record of that account to go by, rather than the one they have made up here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I request an investigation from them, and they can't prove I owe this to them (they can't since I have never had an account with them, or conversly they could if they simply say they are the original OC under new banner) then don't they have to put up or shut up? If they are reporting facts that are wrong, inaccurate (they are) then they can correct them or pull the TR.

The other member had a reply that failed to provide anything confiming the account was theirs, and I expect the same thing to happen here. I will use that to go back to the CRA's with and if they continue to report false information I'll take them to court on principle. Their tactics warrant someone standing up to them and I'm willing to do so.

There are a certain set of rules called laws people have to follow. I'm one that believes that they are not above that requirement the rest of us live with. They can play by them, or they can explain it to a judge.

I appreciate your (and others) feedback, but I want to call them out on this. I will wait, though, until I see results back from EQ.

[2001Badyear]

Put that bat away....wanna get stung?

I would let it sit till it falls off, if it does not then I would send an ITS letter for failure to remove...calling attention to the account at this late date...They may decide to file or sell the claim...

BTW whats the amount?

Good luck

Who,

I would do that as well, but their track record is such that I refuse to give in to bully tactics that others are quick to submit to. I have found in life that when you let people like this get away with what they do they simple are imboldened by that and causes grief to others down the road. In every instance in my other issues in the past I dealt with them straight away, because they were straight forward with me. This is very different.

Since they are reporting dates and amounts that they clearly made up, to include DOFD, there is little hope they will willingly drop this down the road, so I'm planning a preemptive strike. I can't absolutely know that they are entiteled to anything from me unless and until they prove otherwise.

As for the SOL, that has long ago run, on account I believe this relates to. If they wish to file, I'll be there. If they sell the claim, the ownership issue becomes even more difficult for me, as they will take dates from these guys that are, if related to account I think, are wrong, by years.

[Amerikaner83]

Badyear - I know you want to have some fun of your own...but there's really no point. Sorry to bust your bubble here...but if it drops in 2 or 3 months, how about disputing as "obsolete" with the CRAs?

I mean realistically, I see where you're coming from but it sounds like you want to do it "just for the hell of it".

I think there are some better things you can do with that time and energy...

Like training yourself to fetch.

[Magdalen77]

Badyear - I know you want to have some fun of your own...but there's really no point. Sorry to bust your bubble here...but if it drops in 2 or 3 months, how about disputing as "obsolete" with the CRAs?

I mean realistically, I see where you're coming from but it sounds like you want to do it "just for the hell of it".

I think there are some better things you can do with that time and energy...

Like training yourself to fetch.

I think the problem is it may not drop off in a couple of months due to Applied Card re-aging things. At least in my situation they're telling me that I had a charge off date some time in 2005, which means it won't be off my CR until 2012. I know that I settled with CCB in 2001 or 2002. That means at the worst it would be off next year. Applied seems to be trying to resurrect old accounts and give them new life.

[2001Badyear]

Mag's right Amerikaner. My motives may have started that way, but after checking things and talking to people I realized that they were doing something they are not allowed to.

They have done the same thing to my account in that they are reporting a DOFD inaccurately. I now doubt they have any intention of letting it drop in March, and if I can't prove who they are (original OC with a new name) the CRA's just take their word for it. Just hedging my bets a little and trying to get them out in the open, or create the paper trail required if it gets more serious down the road. Even if they don't respond, that's a paer trail too.

[lovebug5]

I think the problem is it may not drop off in a couple of months due to Applied Card re-aging things. At least in my situation they're telling me that I had a charge off date some time in 2005, which means it won't be off my CR until 2012. I know that I settled with CCB in 2001 or 2002. That means at the worst it would be off next year. Applied seems to be trying to resurrect old accounts and give them new life.

Having a charge-off date in 2005 shouldn't have reset your SOL. Since SOL is based upon your DOFD, that date must be prior to their charge-off in 2005. If your account is listing on your credit reports with a fall-off date of some point in 2012, yet you know your DOFD was prior to that (which it had to have been), you've got inaccurate reporting going on. However, if you're simply making an assumption about them re-aging your account based upon their listed charge-off date, I'd do a bit more research into this.

As far as the OP's post, I think it's all a matter of opinion...

Since the debt is no longer within SOL, the OP doesn't have any concern about legal recourse - unless the account ends up being re-aged. That being said, although some may view it as a waste of time since the fall-off date is quickly approaching, he can't necessarily harm himself by requesting documentation.

[Gravity357]

I found Applied really easy to work with. Probably some of the nicer people I've delt with on getting something off of my report. I made a thread about them somewhere.