Jump to content

BOA account comes back verified from CRA's but I got no paperwork


dallaseagle567
 Share

Recommended Posts

There is a BOA account on all 3 credit reports for 5k. I disputed them as not mine and all 3 came back verified, however I thought they were supposed to provide me with documentation of their efforts. I never got anything showing that I actually had an account with BOA. Should I re dispute with the CRA's stating that this time I want documentation that i actually had the account or should I go for one of the other methods to get it dropped off, like stating its the wrong account opening date or something.?

Any info would be much appreciated.

Thank You

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the documents you may be speaking of is the "Method of Verification".

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/repair/Repair.shtml

2. The disputed item was investigated but verified.If you don’t get the item removed, most likely, the credit bureaus will have just given you a cryptic reason as to why like "item verified". We know the credit bureau has absolutely not ever talked to the information furnisher, but has used eOscar. The law required that the bureaus accept any proof you may submit, as well as to pass any documentation you provide on to your creditor for consideration, so be sure to send any documentation you can, if you didn’t do it the first time. I would also hit them up with the Method of Verification technique, which is going to force them to expose the fact that they are using eOscar. You could also try disputing the listing again at a future time. Who knows, you may get lucky, and a different employee of the creditor may not be able to verify the item. If the account does come back as "verified", I recommend trying this method immediately, Disputing Listing With Original Creditor method.

Also read on the link I provided to you about "Tips for resubmitting your credit dispute"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the account really not your account or are you just saying that it isn't?

If the account really isn't your account then you need to follow the proper steps to report the account as ID Theft.

If the account really is your account then I'm not sure what you were expecting to get from BoA? They aren't required to supply you with a lot of data, they are only required to investigate your dispute and report their findings (and change and/or delete the tradeline if your dispute has merit).

The FCRA directs the consumer to explain the basis for his dispute and supply whatever evidence you have to support that position - if you don't supply any supporting documentation; chances are that you'll loose your dispute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you don't supply any supporting documentation; chances are that you'll loose your dispute.

I have disputed 3 accounts on my wife's TU report. The first one, I simply asked them to verify the accuracy. The next two, I disputed as unknown accounts. That's it. No other info. No documentation.

All three were deleted.

Two of these were also on Equifax. I disputed both as unknown. No documentation. One was deleted. One was verified.

The one that was verified I called the OC found they had no record of the acct., and asked EQ to reinvestigate, which they are doing.

That is 80% deletes on the first try with no documentation. I suspect EQ will see the light on the second one.

It has been worth a shot for me to send in general disputes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have disputed 3 accounts on my wife's TU report. The first one, I simply asked them to verify the accuracy. The next two, I disputed as unknown accounts. That's it. No other info. No documentation.

All three were deleted.

Two of these were also on Equifax. I disputed both as unknown. No documentation. One was deleted. One was verified.

The one that was verified I called the OC found they had no record of the acct., and asked EQ to reinvestigate, which they are doing.

That is 80% deletes on the first try with no documentation. I suspect EQ will see the light on the second one.

It has been worth a shot for me to send in general disputes.

Everybody gets lucky deletions once in a while and some people win state lotteries.

However, people shouldn't make winning a lottery their retirement plan, nor should they expect to get lucky deletions very often. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I could win the state lottery 4 out of 5 times, I would play every drawing.

We can chalk it all up to luck, but the odds seem to be much, much more favorable in the credit report disputing drawing.

Public Interest Research Group, which released the report through its state-based chapters, found that nearly 80 percent of the credit reports surveyed contained some kind of error.

Most errors were minor -- demographic information that was misspelled, long outdated or belonged to a stranger.

But 25 percent of the reports contained what PIRG authors deemed serious enough to prevent a consumer from getting a loan or favorable terms.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/178825_creditscores21.asp

Apparently not only is there a good chance there is an material error on your report, there is probably a better chance that somewhere along the line the paperwork isn't in order. FWIW.

In the case of the EQ TL that was verified, I've had that reopened with no documentation. I simply called the OC and wife called the CRA with the info.

If it goes as I expect, that will be 5/5 with no supporting documentation on my part whatsoever. And all accomplished with 43 cent stamps. That's really, really, really "lucky."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the account really not your account or are you just saying that it isn't?

If the account really isn't your account then you need to follow the proper steps to report the account as ID Theft.

If the account really is your account then I'm not sure what you were expecting to get from BoA? They aren't required to supply you with a lot of data, they are only required to investigate your dispute and report their findings (and change and/or delete the tradeline if your dispute has merit).

The FCRA directs the consumer to explain the basis for his dispute and supply whatever evidence you have to support that position - if you don't supply any supporting documentation; chances are that you'll loose your dispute.

Thank You for your reply. I am suspecting that the acct could be mine. I believe that my old bank transferred all their credit accounts over to BOA while my acct was going into default. I never ever once got a statement from BOA, nor had their ever tried to contact me. It was always a CA. The acct has been through 4 different CA's. They all go away as soon as I DV them.

I am going to call BOA, request records, if they refuse or somehow or don't have them..I believe that is enough evidence to warrant a reinvestigation and possibly get it deleted. I called Equifax this morning and they only verified using the electronic system. I think I deserve a deeper investigation.....Thoughts???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If:

And I go 5/5 what were my lucky odds? Please quantify the "chances" of which you speak. I would like to know just how lucky I was.

You were very lucky...so what? I don't really care if you are 5 for 5 or 500 for 500; it's still luck.

Just don't confuse luck for skill or for being "right" as doing so is the perfect prescription for a big disappointment.

Luck is fine but depending on it is dangerous and advocating it to others without identifying it for what it truly is; is irresponsible.

An example (and there are plenty to be found on this site) is a debtor who thinks they are a successful CA fighter because they DV a bunch of stupid CAs on a bunch of $50 debts and are "successful' in getting them to go away...then they try the same BS with a creditor who keeps good records and to whom they owe a couple thousand $$$ and before they can turn around they've got a judgment against them for the couple thousand and attorney fees and their bank account is frozen and they wonder what happened to their "plan".

People can lie about accounts not being their account or just file dispute after dispute after dispute with no valid reasons to do so (other than they don't like accurate negative tradelines on their reports) and they can get tradelines deleted; sometimes for ever and sometimes for just a while. But the fact that people can get lucky in no way changes what the statute says and the FCRA is clear about the responsibilities of the consumer in filing disputes...ignore those responsibilities at your own risk. :titanic:

Have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt there are many things to consider when disputing a debt. However, I never attributed anything to any particular "skill" or for that matter being right. I'm not sure why you are suggesting I did.

You seem very certain that my 5/5 was attributable to luck. I am not so certain. If you are so certain, you should be able to quantify it. I see other possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the FCRA is clear about the responsibilities of the consumer in filing disputes...ignore those responsibilities at your own risk. :titanic:

Have a nice day.

The parties that furnish credit information and the credit reporting agencies also have legal responsibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The parties that furnish credit information and the credit reporting agencies also have legal responsibilities.

I don't recall saying otherwise.

It's odd that you seem to care what the FCRA says about the DF's responsibility but not what it says with respect to the consumer's responsibility. xheadscratchx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt there are many things to consider when disputing a debt. However, I never attributed anything to any particular "skill" or for that matter being right. I'm not sure why you are suggesting I did.

You seem very certain that my 5/5 was attributable to luck. I am not so certain. If you are so certain, you should be able to quantify it. I see other possibilities.

Whether it was "luck" or not; you have clearly maintained that your disputes were submitted with nothing to substantiate them - my point has been that the FCRA is clear that the consumer has a responsibility to completely explain the basis for their dispute and to supply whatever supporting documentation they have to support their position; documentation that a consumer should have if their dispute has a valid basis.

If the consumer doesn't submit supporting documentation; it automatically weakens their position and the DF/CRA is free to discount it or even consider the whole dispute frivolous.

If they actually take it seriously and end up suppressing the tradeline; especially an accurate tradeline, then you can call it what you want or attribute it to what you want but that seems like "luck" to me. :dunno2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I did explain my dispute. "No knowledge of the account."

I had nothing else to offer initially. When one of the 5 came back verified, I called the OC. They had no record, so I then provided the contact name and number at the OC to the CRA and they opened a new investigation.

I provided no supporting documentation.

Apparently the information furnishers were unable or unwilling to support their reporting.

At some point, if a trial is repeated enough and the results are overwhelming, attributing it to "luck" is a tad superstitious. 5/5 may not be that point, but all I am asking is for you to quantify the very determined ascertion you are making.

The odds of flipping a coin 5 times and getting the same result is 1 in 32.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I did explain my dispute. "No knowledge of the account."

I had nothing else to offer initially. When one of the 5 came back verified, I called the OC. They had no record, so I then provided the contact name and number at the OC to the CRA and they opened a new investigation.

I provided no supporting documentation.

Apparently the information furnishers were unable or unwilling to support their reporting.

At some point, if a trial is repeated enough and the results are overwhelming, attributing it to "luck" is a tad superstitious. 5/5 may not be that point, but all I am asking is for you to quantify the very determined ascertion you are making.

The odds of flipping a coin 5 times and getting the same result is 1 in 32.

Well, we aren't flipping coins are we.

If your success wasn't based on luck then what exactly do you think gave you your success? Perhaps you think it's skill but it doesn't seem to me that there is much "skill" involved in disputing a tradeline simply by claiming "I don't have any knowledge about this account".

It's nice that it has worked for you and as I said above, call it any thing you want to call it; but it seems like "luck" to me although I fail to understand why you care whether I think it was luck or not.

Moving on, whether you were lucky or skillful or you bribed someone is not the point and it never was, the point, which you seem intent on ignoring, is what the statutes say are the responsibilities of the consumer...if you want to ignore the statutes then do so.

By now I'm sure you've forgotten the original poster's issue which was why he/she wasn't getting a delete from BoA after disputing the tradelines as "not mine"...my position is that that the OP isn't getting the results desired because BoA is standing its ground which they can do when a consumer doesn't follow the requirements of the statute.

It's really nice that doing it your way worked for you but that doesn't mean it will work for anyone else and it should be obvious that your method isn't working for the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you want to stick to the original question????

:lol:

No. We aren't flipping coins. I used that example as a simple illustration of how odds work and to quantify what it means to call something luck when it is a relatively simple binary proposition.

Again, I never attributed it to skill. I did say there are many things to consider when disputing a TL. I suppose I considered some of these things. Perhaps, I considerered enough to get a 100% result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join Date: May 2005

Location: Tennessee USA

Posts: 4,042

:lol:

I guess you want to play "dodge the question".

It's pretty obvious that what your last eight posts in this thread are really about is that you are simply angry that I suggested that your observed success with your method of negative tradeline removal has more to do with luck than the quality of the method.

Maybe I was too "harsh" in my initial observation...I might even be wrong and while it's certainly your prerogative to be mad about and disagree with my opinion, don't expect me to change my opinion just because you don't like it or don't agree with it.

I still think your success has been more a matter of luck than of skill and while you are free to believe otherwise, there is nothing to be gained by arguing with me about it because regardless of who is right and who is wrong, the right answer will never be known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we aren't flipping coins are we.

.my position is that that the OP isn't getting the results desired because BoA is standing its ground which they can do when a consumer doesn't follow the requirements of the statute.

It's really nice that doing it your way worked for you but that doesn't mean it will work for anyone else and it should be obvious that your method isn't working for the OP.

Would you just suggest me waiting till the statute of limitation in ym state is up before going after the OC?

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.