what can i do when a CRA claims that they verified using an automated system, and thats all they'll say when questioned about procedure? they wont give names, addresses, phone #'s etc. I know its pure BS that they use an automated system with this particular OC, because 1) the OC said they dont do it that way, and 2) after i sent a procedure request to the CRA, they sent me a crap form letter that didnt explain squat. i called them before i sent an ITS notice, and here's what was said (basically): me: ive disputed 5 times, you wont remove even tho i have sent proof, you obviosly havent even tried to verify, and you wont send me an explanation of procedures used to verify. csr: you need to contact the source, they are the ones reporting. me: bullcrap. I already did that and sent you proof from them that this should be removed. who have you talked to there who keeps verifying? csr: I'm not sure. I'd have to check. (brief pause) Do you happen to have a phone # or name at the OC so I can call them right now? *I actually thought i was getting somewhere!* me: sure! here's the name and phone #. csr. hold please. (long pause) csr: we cant call 1-800 numbers. me: huh? what on earth are you talking about? csr: we dont call numbers here, its all automated. me: then why did you ask me for a number in the first place? csr: uh, um, er, duh, doy, der, i'm retarded. me: get me your supervisor. csr: she's out right now. me: when will she be back, and whats her name? --------- bla bla bla....it went on and on, but... the point is, they are not willing to follow any rules, and i'm suing. what i want to know is, do you guys think this new 'we're automated' is a new thing theyre using against people who know their rights and wont be pushed around? i know the FCRA states they must provide me with the names, addresses, numbers called, etc. when i request procedure. for them to just say 'we're automated' sounds like another violation to me....what do you think? Also...can i sue the OC and the CRA at the same time? thanks.
Hi CrowMom. Yeppers. Sounds familiar to me. lol Whenever we have something from the DF demanding removal it should be easy. The CRA receives your dispute with documentation attached. The same stuff you just got from the DF. The CRA forwards your dispute to the DF, INCLUDING THE DOCUMENTATION YOU JUST PROVIDED. [this is required by law] Once the DF sees the proof YOU provided [via the CRA, which came from them in the first place] they would realize it did in fact come from them. The DF informs the CRA of same and the TL disappears. Now that's what's SUPPOSED to happen. This whole thing is perfect if it would just work the way it's supposed to. In fact, if it doesn't happen exactly that way they are in violation. Incredibly, it NEVER happens that way because CRA's verify just with a 2 - 4 digit code number. Never is your evidence forwarded to the DF. Thus creating an automatic violation. If you haven't done so already, break and do a search on "Absolutely Must Read [!]" by Butch. Read that testimony about how they REALLY validate. lol Nevermind, here it is: http://www.naca.net/BennettFCRATestimony.pdf So great, now that I have a violation what do I do? As much as I hate to tell you this, you may be at or beyond the point where you're going to have no choice but to file suit. If it were me, the very next communication they received from me would be via a Sheriff. Short of that however, you might try writing up your formal complaint, (the lawsuit) photo copy all your previous correspondence and green cards. I'd find the office of the president AND their Office of Chief Council (by name) AND the registered agent for my state. I'd give em exactly five business days to remove it. On day 6, I file. Once I file, there's no turning back. PERIOD - END OF STORY. Unfortunately these people are learning to "push the envelope", when it comes to dealing with the public. Most everyone, even here on CN, are reluctant to actually file a lawsuit. We need to get over this hump guys. This process involves an ESCALATING degree of [as Doc would call it] nuisance value. The key word is ESCALATING. Once we get up to a certain point, and then back down, how serious should they take you??? The escalation of this nuisance value can be gradual, but it must be solid. Not 2 steps forward and one step back. Every DF on my reports ALL know I'd sue their respective a$$'s at the drop of a hat, IN FACT I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO IT. Keeps em in line. LOL These people are terrorist's [financial terrorist's] and you need to deal with them as such. In other words, we cannot negotiate with terrorists (so EVERYTHING MUST be in writing). Terrorist's respect ONLY one thing, force. When it comes time that "diplomacy" fails; it's time to unleash the raw power of the judicial system to force them to comply with the law, and make it as painful as we possibly can since they haven't. Only when the price of NONcompliance exceeds the cost of complience can we expect any change at all. And yes, it's all very carefully messured by legal actuaries. [number crunchers] Like politicians; Only when the people lead, will the leaders follow. Some people are thrust into Greatness CrowMom; you might be on of em, who just has no other choice. Whether or not you "want" to is beside the point. Get ready, and get pi$$ed. Tsun Su once said, in "The Art of War", the best way to avoid war is to not fear it. The best way to avoid a lawsuit is to eloquently convey this message. As Jlynn might say; "Do NOT start with me, you WILL NOT win".
ok, i'll add that to my list. GREAT STUFF. I had already read it, but i just re-read it. This is definitely a must-read. DAMN RIGHT I WILL. OK, you freaked me out with this. Where do i find out that info for Experian? So, does that mean i can go blow them up with a car bomb? probably not. darn. (oops, maybe saying that was going a little too far...i digress...) I'm so ready to sue, and definitely pissed. Thanks butch. I'm so glad you responded to this. It helped immensely. one more thing....can i sue the OC and the CRA at the same time? thanks again.
"can i sue the OC and the CRA at the same time?" Well ... technically sure you can. And I would do it that way if the OC was not being co-operative. I would name them both and then agree to drop the OC in exchange for proper documenation to aid your argument against the CRA. The OC would be delighted to do that, if they'll be dropped. But in this case they are being co-operative. I'd want to make sure I had all the paper work I needed to carry on, and THEN contemplate leaving them out. Sounds to me like you can. The only way I've ever been able to get this info. on a company is the old fashion way. Call & ask. lol I'd start with the SOS in TX and see if you can get the Statutory Agents name and number. Then I'd call and confirm the address and cheif councils name. Be polite. Be sure to put him/her in the address portion of your letter so the CEO can see their cheif council has it also. Worked for me CrowMom. In fact it worked "right smartly", as they'd say down home. Other may weigh in here too.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me this is Equifax. If it is, I already have asuit filed against them over just this issue, and I am talking with David Szwak about escalating it into a major class action. See my thread "Kicked Out of Equifax!!!" for what will happen if and when you file suit.
Re: Re: automated verification bullcrap Nope, as i mentioned above, this is Experian. In the recent past the OC has told me that they verify over the phone, but I talked to them today, and now they're telling me that they did just recently start using an automated system. (hang on, this may be of interest to you) According to their legal dept, they now post all their accounts' statuses online (yes she used the word 'online') for all 3 bureaus to view whenever there's a dispute. Cant get much easier than that. You may want to ask your OC (or CA, DF, whatever) if they do the same thing. If you're still on friendly terms w the DF, (which i doubt, i've read most of your posts, lol) you could get lucky like i did today... I actually got someone in legal to agree to send me a letter stating that their info is online, that Experian knows that, that all Experian had to do was look it up, and that the TL should've been removed in MAY. after i get that letter, i'm off to the courthouse, and i'm confident i'll win. Class action suit? sounds like we need to get one for all 3 of the bureaus combined. Something like that is so overdue.
Re: Re: automated verification bullcrap I wonder what it would take to actually get the laws changed/strengthened? You know after going through all this (and I've been helping someone with all their divorce paperwork as well), I actually looked into going to law school - to specialize only in consumer affairs. But the college website says the average grad has $40K in loan debt at graduation. YIKES! And that's in 2 and a half years and I would have to drive 2 hours each way to get to the school.... I think I better think it out again....
Re: Re: automated verification bullcrap 40 grand in debt when you graduate. Ironic, huh. Go to school to learn how to help consumers to not get screwed and go into debt in the process. Hey, I have an idea. go to school, rack up all that debt, and then just deny, deny, deny, dispute, dispute, dispute, demand validation, rack up violations, etc. lol...just kidding.
Re: Re: automated verification bullcrap HAHAHAHAHA That's a good one. It is ironic because my fiance has $40 in student loans on his credit, too (but all "paid as agreed" - it's in forebearance, but no lates or anything) (Can't deny and validate a fed student loan, though) They also said there is a program to help pay for school where you agree to work in public sector for 2 years after grad. It's the driving 4 hours a day that's the real kicker, though.
