I sent Doc's "litigious nutcase" letter to 3 fully paid creditors on Friday and received a phone call from one today. What do I do? Do I call them back? I just want the tradeline deleted. I'm a bit worried because although I am positive I paid the account off fully after the charge-off, my credit reports simply say charge-off. Please help! Thank you!
Missy, it looks like there are a few issues worth considering here, so I'll tackle them separately: 1) The conflicting data regarding whether the tradeline is fully paid or not concerns me. Keep in mind that the letter you sent was designed for fully paid but very late-pay tradelines -- not unpaid chargeoffs. In other words, it's for when everybody agrees that you've already paid off the account in full -- hence, "what does this nutcase want now?" If any of the parties believe you still owe money, then a standard serious validation/estoppel sequence is how you should proceed. Remember to keep this in mind going forward. 2) In this particular case, if you're positive that you paid it off fully, then you should worry a bit less. Get your records together that substantiates the fully-paid status (old cancelled check; bank records; etc.). You've got ammunition that there's something horribly wrong with the way that item is being reported. Keep us posted regarding what kind of evidence you have that will substantiate the fully paid status of that previously charged-off debt, and I'm sure you'll benefit from a variety of options you have with respect to how to attack this. 3) I probably would not call them back. Wait and see how they handle this. You didn't ask for a phone call. You asked for specific written action or a tradeline deletion within 30 days. If you do call them back, though, keep control of the call -- i.e., don't start answering their questions if it appears that they are pressing you for information. If they ask what do you want, tell them something like, "The letter asks for specific action within 30 days. I've been advised not to discuss this with you by phone; please respond by letter. Sorry I must cut this short, but that's what I must do." (Repeat as necessary and then hang up.) On the other hand, if they are calling to let you know that they're going to delete the tradeline quickly, that's fine, say thank you and request that they send you a letter confirming that. If they start attempting to collect the debt (oh my god!), then it's clear that they are congruent with what the credit file says -- they believe you still owe the debt. In that case, per my first point here, get your evidence together to fight them in a different way and request advice here on the board as necessary. Doc
I've sent the letters, I haven't gotten any response from the ca. They ARE PAID, what do you do at this point? Send another letter? If so, which one?????? If not, then what? I do not have any proof for 1 paid collection it was from 1996/1995. I disputed it as "not mine" and it came back verified. Actually it's an for AA&T old cell phone bill. I moved and never received the bill although I called their stupid customer service 2 or 3 times and they never changed the address. I agreed to pay it because they said they would update it and not report it, but they still put it on as a paid collection. I did not get a letter. It not due to come off until the end of this year or next year sometime. Other paid collection is from a Sprint PCS bill. I paid that this year (before I found this website) because I wanted to get a cell phone. I contacted Sprint's Executive Office and they refused to do anything for me. I disputed with the CRAs and it came back verified. I don't know what to do at this point, any suggestions? BTW, I did a direct debit from my checking account and it was with Sprint PCS. I have never dealt with the CA.
Was the CA for Sprint Collectech? That's who I'm dealing with and they are ROTTEN! If THEY are the ones reporting it, send them the validation letter. They will likely NOT respond. Then after 30 days send the estoppel, then a copy of the CRRR's and the letters you sent, send that to the CRA's.
Uh, Kellie, I was responding to this statement: "I'm a bit worried because although I am positive I paid the account off fully after the charge-off, my credit reports simply say charge-off." When the credit report suggests something isn't paid, there's a chance that the creditor mistakenly believes that the item isn't paid either. If that's the case, the letter I wrote really wasn't intended to address the conflict (even when the creditor is making a mistake). The letter is intended for situations where everyone agrees that the late-pay tradelines are for completely paid accounts. Doc
No, I don't think it was Sprint Collectech. It was SprintPCS - charged off - then went to the collection agency. I'm going to dispute again and I'll see what happens. I know it is very hard to get a paid collection off your reports. I may just have to live with it. My problem is, I paid to SprintPCS and not the collection agency so they are not likely to help me out.
Doc, thank you once again for the good and thorough advice. So, I called the representative who had left me the message back. He was quite rude from the get-go, and said that he did not understand what my letter requested. Obviously he did or he wouldn't have responded so quickly. Anyhow, I used Doc's advice "I have stated it in my letter, I've been advised not to discuss over the phone, please respond in writing." He continued to demand what I wanted, and I gave in a bit and said deletion of the tradelines from the 2 CRAs, which is spelled out in the letter. That was the extent of what I said. He said that the items would not be deleted, that we both knew that I had a paid Charge-off from xxxx date (so he confirmed it paid! even though the reports say otherwise). It made me feel better that in everyone's systems but the CRAs the debt is confirmed to be fully paid. Unfortunately, my personal documentation of the payment is all in storage and questionable at that. And I've since closed the bank account which would have a record of the cancelled check, so proof is tough. I said I was going to hang up now, and he continued to ask what I wanted from him, if I wanted a letter from him saying that he would not delete these items. I repeated that I wanted him to respond to the letter I had written him, and he said he would mail a letter to me. He was obviously disturbed by this nutcase on the loose, and I kept my cool and just kept referring to the letter. So, advice and questions on next steps? - If he sends a letter stating the account status is paid charge-off, and both of the CRAs report non-paid, is that grounds for deletion? - If he sends me anything that isn't CRRR and I simply send the original letter and the green card to the CRAs and hope for deletion from them based on failure to validate an item? Does that ever work? - As I understand it, estoppel letters don't apply to paid collections, correct? - Any other suggestions? Oh, and BTW, I did have the letter notorized before sending it. Thanks again!
Ok, you may be at a dead end. The last thing you want to say is that you want the tradelines deleted. (Hindsight is everything, though, lol, so I apologize for not anticipating this outcome.) Your letter goes on and on about requesting VALIDATION in a certain way. Just as a throwaway line toward the middle-end the letter mentions that they have 30 days to provide the validation in that specific format or they'll have to delete the tradeline. It then continues about the validation. The emphasis is on the validation. You hope that they struggle with this and then just delete the tradeline to be rid of you. Saying specifically that you want a tradeline deletion really takes the power away from the rest of the letter. I know this is an unhelpful lecture to hear at this point, but maybe it will come in handy in the future. All is not lost, though. He'll confirm that the tradeline is completely paid off. Your next step is to do a simple dispute with the CRA. Do NOT send them the letter the CA sends. Let the CRA deny your dispute. Then file a small claims suit against the CRA. They'll end up removing the tradeline. Doc
And to think I thought that I was beginning to learn the system. I'm frustrated with myself right now... Still, if the conversation was all verbal, and he fails to validate the way that the letter asked, we're still in the same boat, right? Can I resend a similar letter after receipt of his letter asking for validation? If not, on what basis do I file a small-claims suit? Thanks...
Well, two quick points: 1) You did nothing wrong. I think some of us throw letters out there without enough explanation of intent and just expect people to read minds. 2) You're exactly right. Nothing has changed vis-a-vis your situation. You've still made a demand, and he hasn't fulfilled it. It's a PAID chargeoff, which he admits, yet the CRA file doesn't reflect the paid status. Here's what I suggest. Once the CA sends you a letter that says the chargeoff is paid but will remain on your record, you can then sue the CA. I'm suggesting you lodge a small claims suit -- because it's inexpensive (between $20 and $75 depending upon where you live) and because it doesn't require a lawyer. The CA has a responsibility to report the tradeline correctly; they admit that it's paid; they refused to validate the tradeline (your CURRENT request -- the nutcase letter you sent); and it remains on your record as "unpaid" which is damaging you. (Oh, one more thing -- get damaged. In other words, apply for a credit card and get turned down, so that you will show the judge that they have damaged you.) You're not out of this ballgame by a long shot. In fact, once you lodge a lawsuit they're likely to remove the tradeline just to be rid of you. Doc
Doc- "Get Damaged" LOL I was wondering if LIVING on the creditnet chat board and being forced to speak to a "Doc" everyday is proof of mental anguish. It was worth a shot...
Kellie, after reading your last few posts, I'm beginning to wonder about the hostility I've clearly inspired your way. Fill me in. Doc
Thanks again Doc! I realize that any trouble I've created here is my own, I should have gone with your exact advice! But I live and learn. After I receive the letter from the creditor, should I try one more regular dispute with the CRAs? Should I send a followup letter (i.e. modified nutcase) asking again for validation that they never provided? Or should I go straight to small claims? BTW, I'm waiting to hear from the other two fully paid creditors to whom I sent the nutcase letter. And, no worries Doc, these are less ambiguous and reported accurately: one is a settled charge-off and the other is a bunch of late pays on a paid and closed auto loan. Thank you again for all the help!
Missy, scroll up in this thread and look for two postings where I layed out a couple of gameplans. You've got to weigh this and make some decisions about how to go. Sure, you can go the dispute route with the CRA as a next step. Or, you can sue the CA. If you go the dispute route with the CRA, you're establishing a paper trail for a possible lawsuit if they don't play ball in correcting what is obviously a damaging mistake. I can't tell you which way to go, but either (or both) seem like plausible scenarios. Keep us posted as this develops. I wouldn't send a modified nutcase letter to the CA, though. He already knows your motive because you tipped your hand on the phone regarding tradeline deletions being your principal interest. At this point, move forward with a lawsuit paper trail for either the CA or the CRA or both. Doc
