three strikes and you're out

[deltadawn]

I have contemplated over various threads and have come to the conclusion that I am not trying to deceive any of my creditors by trying to repair my credit report. All of the negatives that I have on my report is reflected in just a few months.

I totally agree with WTC signature (Manage your debt and not your credit scores) - so I have not joined a credit monitoring site because I was afraid I would become obsessed with it. (Although my DH has been paying for identity fraud program for the past 4 years - DH never initiated the credit monitoring alerts they offered ..... and I did)

So here goes -

Cap 1 - 1 30 day late Jun 05 - sent goodwill letter / response - our records are correct - not worth pursuing.

IHC - medical (now in arbitration with insurance company) - have not paid (awaiting response)

2 CA - medical - paid in 06 - never disputed (not aware of any options)......valid debt - online dispute with CRA's - came back verified (AUG) (considered why chat's method and did not use it - not applicable) written dispute (SEP) - came back verified ............so now I have composed a letter to CA

To Whom It May Concern:

The following items have been disputed twice with all 3 Credit Reporting Agencies. I received notification from them that you have verified the information you are reporting to them, as correct both times.

Re. Account # xxx

This account has been re-aged showing the DOFD is 12/2005. This is a FTC violation. Please correct this inaccurate information or delete it from my credit reports.

Re. Account # xxx

This account is being reported as a joint account/shared/participant on account on both xxx / xxx credit reports. One of the credit bureaus is not showing that this is a medical account and is a HIPAA violation. Please correct this or delete from our credit reports.

These accounts were paid at the same time and were to be deleted upon payment. I am not sure if this was an oversight, negligence, or deception on your part – whatever the case, Express Recovery Services did not uphold this agreement.

This is an attempt for you to correct your records.

I request that you report accurately or not at all. Upon receipt of this letter, you will have 30 days in which to either correct the information you are reporting or delete the items from my credit report.

In the event of noncompliance, I reserve the right to file complaints with the Utah Attorney General, BBB, ACA Intl, HIPAA Compliance Office and the FTC for possible violations.

Thank you

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated - this is my third attempt at either correcting or deleting TL

(BTW - I did not include the mail order catalog co. because I don't think it has been reported on credit report)

[LUEser]

Looks like you're building an FCRA case.

This letter is to Express, the CA assigned to the medical bills, correct?

So you disputed with the CRAs, they came back verified twice.

Are the TL's showing paid in full?

Is it accurate?

You're now evoking your 623 rights to dispute directly with the DF.

If they again verify and don't mark the account in dispute in the next reporting period (outlined in 611 of the FCRA), and you have proof of this letter you're about to send was received (CMRRR).

Then you, my friend, have them by the proverbial balls. As this type of action is a 1682s-2( et seq. violation. Which does give you private right of action.

These accounts were paid at the same time and were to be deleted upon payment. I am not sure if this was an oversight, negligence, or deception on your part – whatever the case, Express Recovery Services did not uphold this agreement.

You have this in writing?

If so, you could probably forgo all the above and hit them with breach of contract.

I have a lot going on right now with the Sherman Group or I'd try the whychat method just to see if it works.

[deltadawn]

This letter is to Express, the CA assigned to the medical bills, correct?

y

Are the TL's showing paid in full? y

Is it accurate? DOFD is showing 12/05 Terms -1mo /medical service provided 3/05, therefore if terms were 1mo DOFD should be 4/05

If they again verify and don't mark the account in dispute TU - shows disputed by customer EQ -consumer disputes account info

These accounts were paid at the same time and were to be deleted upon payment. You have this in writing? n via phone conversation I was told that since I responded, it would not affect my credit report.

One of the credit bureaus is not showing that this is a medical account and is a HIPAA violation This is now showing 02 beside name of medical provider - so I have deleted this from my letter to CA

I owed, I paid - although this is probably a minute detail in my report - it is incorrect and the only way it will probably be deleted is if ERS does not want to waste their time and energy researching to correct the info being reported.

You're now evoking your 623 rights to dispute directly with the DF. I thought this was done with the OC, who is not reporting - the DF is the CA.

Thanks for the help. Any suggestions are welcome.

[deltadawn]

Putting this on hold for now - May decide to go BBB/AG/ACA route....Mulling over my options.

[AboveAverage]

Putting this on hold for now - May decide to go BBB/AG/ACA route....Mulling over my options.

If it helps I just got rid of a $35 medical through the BBB. Go to the BBB.ORG and choose the BBB that is located where your CA is. You can do the complaint online and you'll get an e-mail/snail mail about your complaint. If it's like mine, it will go away from your report.

You have to put in your complaint that you want the CA to stop reporting to the CRs if they cannot prove to you that it's valid. Good luck though.

[deltadawn]

Thanks - I am leaning in that direction since it has been over 2 years since this has been paid - I think the CA will just blow it off.

I have read so much information that my mind was getting clouded and I stopped thinking clearly.

I do have the paperwork form the original medical providers, so I do know that one account has been re-aged.

The other account is a joint medical account and is posted on both DH and my reports. EX did correct my report and placed a number beside the doctor's name. Have not disputed DH's report, so it does not show any medical notation.

The CA is a member of ACA Intl.

I would like the account deleted off my reports......this CA is not a member of the BBB; so I don't know how effective this process would be. It appears that only 2 complaints that have been filed against them have been resolved - the others just show that the company addressed the issue.

I need to be mentally alert when addressing my complaint - I would prefer that they delete the TL rather than correct it.

I'll keep ya updated on how I handle this.

[LUEser]

Sorry, I took so long to respond.

You're now evoking your 623 rights to dispute directly with the DF. I thought this was done with the OC, who is not reporting - the DF is the CA.

623 is generally reservered for the OC for our purposes here, but it applies to any Data Furnisher. In this case, that would be our lovely CA. 623 uses the word "person" and person as defined by the FCRA includes the CAs. So you can hit them with the 623. Sometimes, just being a PITA works wonders.

Then, you have the 611 MOV request that you can simultaneously submit to the CRAs, and they have to disclose to you how they verified.

Keep truckin' soldier, you'll get there.

[deltadawn]

In my letter to the CRA's I did request MOV (or so I thought). That portion of my letter reads as follows:

"In order to complete my personal files, I need the name of the person providing this data, their position within the company, and the manner in which it was provided."

All three responded that it was verified - they never responded to my MOV request.

IYO do you think writing to the CA would be more beneficial than going through the BBB/AG/ACA?

I appreciate your responses.

[LUEser]

Perhaps try being more specific.

You can still keep it short, but cite 15 USC 1681i(a)(6)((iii) and 1681i(a)(7),

then ask that they disclose to you the the description of the procedure used.

Notify them that simply verifying with eOscar isn't enough.

And if they still don't comply, greet them with a summons.

[deltadawn]

I gave this a rest for a few days to clear my mind - started researching again and I am mentally in the same place I was a few days ago...........

2 paid medical collections:

1 collection is showing that has been re-aged

Disputed online - Jul

Results verified - Aug

Disputed in writing - Sep

Results verified - Sep

Objective is to have it deleted from CRA's

As I see it I have the following options

1. Send MOV to CRA's (not sure how this will assist me with a delete)

2. Dispute with CA (not sure how this will assist me either - all they would have to do is correct incorrect reporting)

3. Why Chat method (not applicable / CA paid / have already disputed as re-aged)

4. Complain to BB/AG/ACA Intl - (CA corrects reporting incorrectly and case closed)

What is my best plan of action in order to achieve my objective?

I will deal with 2nd pd collection later.

[LUEser]

1) If the CRA half assed their investigation, they may delete to Cover their A**es

2) The CA must report at least that the account is disputed. That's why this is mentioned as the first step in the 1-2 punch. If they verify and don't update the TL as "disputed by consumer" then they violate FCRA. You're set up forces it to be done backwards, but still may work.

3) Why Chat is unfounded anyway. It's a very liberal stretch of the HIPAA laws to insist that your payments as reported by a CA is protected informaiton, even if you do pay the hospital.

4) It can't hurt.

5) You have the legal system. If you have copies of when it was paid, then you can show willful noncompliance of the FCRA.

[deltadawn]

5) You have the legal system. If you have copies of when it was paid, then you can show willful noncompliance of the FCRA.

The account is showing pd on all 3 CRA's.....DOFD is incorrect

I was just trying to find a discreptancy in the reporting - hoping to delete the TL. That was the only thing I could find.

TU did add med01 to the name of original creditor

EQ did not; however does show under creditor class - medical/health care\

EX does not show med at all - just states that I need to ctc CA who provided the info

Am I SOL?

[LUEser]

DOFD on a medical account is incorrect?

Go directly to the to the hospital and see if they have the payment records. They should. And it'll show you when they charged it off.

Then you have proof. You dispute again.

But I wouldn't show your hand to the CRAs with this, they may simply forward it to the Data Furnisher and then they correct on those grounds. Simply dispute DOFD with them again, along with a MOV request.

At the same time 623 the DF, so now both the CRA and the CA have to be held accountable.

If you find they didn't investigate at all and simply used e-Oscar

And you have the records from the OC that shows that infact this has been reaged.

Then court time, for willful noncompliance. FCRA s-2((A) and (E)(i)

And possibly, if the fault is on the CRAs, court time with them too for 611 violations. It's a surefire way to get your account put into "special" status, which means from here on out, the investigations will actually get done right.

But if you're not willing to go through all that, then burial by paper is also a good tactic. Send a 623 a day for a month or two, perhaps a few nutcase letters, topped off with a ITS (not CMRRR as that would be too expensive) may get you the results you want.

[deltadawn]

Thanks LUEser -

I'll definitely consider your thoughts on my situation. This is not a pressing issue and I do not want to react hastily. I do have the original paperwork from the Dr. and Ins. Provider - so I'm positive they have re-aged the debt.

I need to understand the different laws first.

First CA is reporting inaccurate info and it's my understanding that the CA would be noncompliant of HIPAA because of:

FCRA 604.3 (g)(1)© states:

© the information to be furnished pertains solely to transactions, accounts, or balances relating to debts arising from the receipt of medical services,

products, or devises, where such information, other than account status or

amounts, is restricted or reported using codes that do not identify, or do not

provide information sufficient to infer, the specific provider or the nature of

such services, products, or devices, as provided in section 605(a)(6).

FCA 605 (a)(6) states:

6) The name, address, and telephone number of any medical information furnisher that

has notified the agency of its status, unless--

(A) such name, address, and telephone number are restricted or reported using

codes that do not identify, or provide information sufficient to infer, the

specific provider or the nature of such services, products, or devices to a

person other than the consumer;

But I become confused and interpret this law differently each time I read it. My interpretation for 604 is for the DF and 605 is for the CRA's.

Therefore, the CRA's have furnished confidential information to those who have requested my CR in the interim because this was not coded correctly.

My thought process is normally very methodical.........but as I try and process the information provided here, my mind plays a "tug of war" and I become frustrated.....so I am a "nutcase".

I usually have no problems in making decisions or accepting responsibility for my choices. But this is foreign territory to me and I lack the confidence I need because of my lack of knowlege.

I do appreciate your opinions and have to review the pros and cons of each option.

[deltadawn]

Is a CA legally required to show a pd med collection as MED01 with CRA's? If true what law would they be violating if it is not included?

[LUEser]

If you're positive they reaged the debt, why worry about HIPAA, I'm not even sure we have private right of action under it, but I have only given it a summary reading.

The reaging thing is an FCRA issue, which if you follow the dispute procedures and paper trail it correctly, you may get them for violating 623( or ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2()

I'll have to do some more research to be able to respond in depth to your above post however.

[deltadawn]

100% positive; however, there are actually 2 pd medicals.

One which has been re-aged and does not show MED01 on all 3 CRA reports.

The only thing that may be incorrect on the 2nd account is that on 1 of my reports, it does not have the doctor's name coded or MED01.

Just looking at all my options.

Thanks for the information.

[deltadawn]

Have decided to write CA re. incorrect reporting...If someone could critique my letter, it would be appreciated. Also do I send proof of the incorrect reporting at this point? What are the pitfalls of this letter?

The following items have been disputed twice with all 3 Credit Reporting Agencies. I received notification from them that you have verified the information you are reporting accurate information.

Re. Account # xxxxxx

This account has been re-aged showing the DOFD is 12/2005. This is a FTC violation. You have failed to meet your responsibility as detailed in Section 623 of the FCRA and 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2

This inaccurate information was not corrected within guidelines of the FTC; therefore needs to be deleted..

Re. Account # xxxxxx

This account is listed on all three Credit Reporting Agencies for both Mr and Mrs. You are reporting this as a joint account and have failed to note that this is a medical account. This also is against government regulations and you have failed to designate a code when reporting which is outlined in Sections 604 and 605.

Again your failure to report a medical collection properly has violated the privacy laws and needs to be deleted from both parties’ reports.

At the time these accounts were paid, I was assured that this would not be reflected on my credit report. I am not sure if this was an oversight, negligence, or deception on your part – whatever the case, CA did not uphold this agreement.

Upon receipt of this letter, you will have 30 days in which to delete the items from my credit reports.

I reserve the right to file complaints with the Ut. AG, BBB, ACA Intl, HIPAA, Ut. Division of Consumer Protection and the FTC for violations should I not receive written notification of compliance.

[AboveAverage]

Nice letter.

If you are going to write to the CA, do a 1-2 punch to the CRAs as well. When you dispute to the bureaus, just make sure you include a copy of your driver's license as well as state as your last sentence "I have included a copy of my driver's license as proof of my identity."

You won't have any stalling issues when you send that out.

[deltadawn]

Thanks for responding. I have disputed twice with the CRA's - once online and one written dispute. If I send them another letter, want they consider it frivolous? I have not sent them documentation verifying that the DOFD is being reported as incorrect. Will the CRA's just designate a code for the medical notation; therefore, reporting correctly?

[AboveAverage]

Thanks for responding. I have disputed twice with the CRA's - once online and one written dispute. If I send them another letter, want they consider it frivolous? I have not sent them documentation verifying that the DOFD is being reported as incorrect. Will the CRA's just designate a code for the medical notation; therefore, reporting correctly?

If you send a different reason for why you're disputing no, it should not be considered frivolous. But sending a letter to the CA will almost never get you the result you want. Which is why if the 1-2 fails, you'll probably be served best going to the aforementioned agencies you stated in your letter.

[deltadawn]

If you send a different reason for why you're disputing no, it should not be considered frivolous. But sending a letter to the CA will almost never get you the result you want. Which is why if the 1-2 fails, you'll probably be served best going to the aforementioned agencies you stated in your letter.

I have not mailed the letter to the CA because I have been debating whether I should file complaints with the different agencies or try and resolve it with the CA. Also I have amended my letter. I can't think of a different reason to dispute with CRA's - although, since they did not address MOV, I could send another request for that.

Ammendments to letter:

Added - You are also in violation of Utah Statute 70C-7-107 because you are reporting this negative account on both parties. You never sent out any notification to DH regarding this debt; nor were any of the invoices from the doctor sent to him.

Added - Utah State Licensing Board (to list of agencies)

Added - You must give this letter the attention it deserves. (from retmar's advise to others)

Added -I have sent this letter via certified mail #xxxx so that my paper trail is complete, showing that you have received and acknowledged this letter.

My delemma in procrastinating - once I send the letter to the CA, can they just correct the information and show accurate reporting to the CRA's? If that is the case, then my complaints to the various agencies would be invalid.

Also should I send the CA proof of misreporting at this time or include the documentation to the various agencies?