Understanding that the OC does not need to "Validate" I sent a DV to Purina Auto a Subsidiary of Wells. This account shows Repo/Charged off. Still within sSOL will age fall off in 9 months. The letter I sent was combination of FCRA ,FDCPA, psychotic, you better validate this repo or remove it. OC Purina Auto Loan replied: We got your letter the other day. As of the date on this letter, your account shows a balance of 32 million dollars. This balance as we have previously stated is a result of your voluntary surrender of your 2012 Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Therefore, the 32 million being reported, as charged off by us Purina Auto to your credit report is correct, outstanding, and in the process of being collected. If you pay Purina Auto the bread you owe us contractually. Purina Auto will report it as being paid in full. Sincerely, Purina Auto No 'This is an attempt to collect a debt' statement. This account does show NTL's from CA on the CR Also Shows NTL from OC- Repo Balance 32 million past due 32 milllion Equifax states Involuntary Repo I'd like to send them something nice. sorta FOAD -ish. What would you do?
This may seem like an idiotic question (but it's not)... Was the repo a repo? i.e. On what grounds did the alleged repo occur? There is a caselaw that I love where the question of was a repo a repo, if it was a repo for any other reason than the failure to make a payment. The case specifically went something like this. Someone leased a car, they gave the car to their minor child to drive. He had his girlfriend drive the car, a substance of some kind which was illegal was in the car, and it was seized by the po-po, the leasing company repoed the car from the po-po, They then sent the lessee a notice that she was in default of the lease and owed a deficiency. She REPEATEDLY disputed it on her credit reports as not being a repo, and the court found that whether the repo was a repo was a question of fact that required CONSIDERABLE parsing of the contract, and couldn't be dismissed summarily. The question being whether or not a repo is a repo is more complex than a breach occurred, and the OC invoked repossession. To the least sophisticated consumer, a REPOSSESSION notation only means that you didn't make your car payments. To many sophisticated consumers, and businesses, a REPOSSESSION notation only means that you didn't make your car payments. If the notation of repossession causes an appearance of inaccurate reporting, then the reporting could be inaccurate. So my suggestion is to look through the ENTIRE CRA reporting on all three CRAs. Make note of any even trivial minor differences, and dispute those exact facts, and if there is any question of whether the repo was a repo, you want to make sure that you dispute that as well. It'll take a whole lot of months of disputing on each CRA to accumulate $32 MILLION in damages at $1,000.00 a pop on each CRA. ($3,000/month if they verify to all three.) If you would be able to keep escalating the disputes past the 'frivolous' dispute label for all 9 months, you could get them up to $27,000 in damages.
What I have from OC Purina Auto Finance is a letter that says the alleged vehicle was Voluntarily Surrendered. What the CRA have list is EQ Involuntary Repossession EX Repossession/Never Late $32M past due TU Repossession OC Purina states nothing about "Repossession". CRA dispute sure shot to frivolous?
Jam, How would one go about going around the Friv Department? Do higher ups at CRA like to be emailed/fax from consumers like me asking for investigation on conflicting reporting versus a letter from OC?
Typically, when I want to go around the frivolous frivolous determination, I go about it this way. I stay at each level until I get a frivolous letter... 1. Simple dispute. 2. Simple dispute citing Cushman 'unreliability' of the Data Furnisher. 3. Simple dispute adding Johnson v. MBNA to the mix, duty to perform a conclusive verification. 4. ITS with complaint for not complying with the FCRA.
My previous disputes to CRA's were on one letter with multiple possible erroneous tradelines. Should I now address each one with individual letters since the disputes all came back verified?
Also Jam, Should I just let OC Auto Loan chill for now? Nothing else to ask for except delete in 9 months? OC says Voluntary Surrender CRA Say Repossession or Involuntary Repossession.......Semantics I know but the CR says something different then what the OC wrote to me..... Thinking Dear CRA. I am again disputing this Purina Auto Loan. Your response letter is conflicting wit info supplied to me directly from OC Purina Auto Loans. I read about Cusman and the unreliability of the data furnisher in that case. I think similar unreliability is happening in my case. Once again, I request you investigate this tradeline in its entirety since what you are reporting does not match what the OC sent to me. I am requesting this as part of my rights under FCRA. Dirtbag Consumer Am I way off on this?
You will want to read and cite Cushman in your letter. But wait to get the frivolous letter before escalating.
