Quickest boost from 591?

Beneficial is a duplicate, same balance and everything. it should be deleted. Then call them and ask if I pay this off, will they delete, if they say NO, ask for a supervisor, When you get a Yes, Ask them to fax you that will indeed delete the mark off your record.

Settlement accept on Cap1? Hmm I would Dispute it with CRA, see what happens.

Nextcard? If they don't own the account then they shouldn't be reporting it, Period. Its hurting your credit rating and thats malicious intent.

This is gonna take 40 days to do. There is no quick fix. I would dispute all of these.

 

In regards to Cap One:

go to www.planetfeedback.com

Simply tell them you had an account with them when you are in college and you were careless. Ask them if there is any possible way to have it deleted.

Wait a few days, the wonderful Mr Cooke will email you asking you to call him. Call him and ask him the same thing, he will either:
1. Change it to an R5 (which is MUCH better than chargeoff)

or
2. Have you pay the difference in settlement and change it to paid never late.

Good luck

 

That statement isn't correct. If an original creditor, or any other creditor for that matter, owned an acct that charged off and then sold it, they may report it as sold or transferred, but, it must show a zero balance.

 

I wouldn't send a settlement offer to Beneficial. I would dispute thru the CRA's 1st then them. If you offer a settlement you are stuck if they decline your offer to pay to delete. Cap 1 I would dispute as paid as agreed. I had a Cap 1 chargeoff and talked to Eugene Cooke and we agreed to settle for 1/3 payoff and an R5. I decide not to take the offer and so far I have it down to an R5 without paying a penny. I should have TU deleting it later this month. I would not skip any steps in trying to clean your reports. Dispute with the CRA's, then the CA's and so on. The whole process is not a fast one, but your credit did not get in that shape overnight either. The steps are there for a reason. Charlie

 

Wait a minute, You are telling me, I can buy an account from a Credit card company, Try to collect the debt, post it to someone credit report. Get tired of dealing with them, Sell it to someone else. Then change the same credit line as SOLD? And they are stuck with it as a negative? So basically I can damage anyone I want just cause I sold a debt? Hell thats pretty damn powerful.

 

That's where validation comes in. If a CA cannot validate an account 99% of the time when they own the account, they sure as heck won't be able to validate once they've flushed it from their files.

BTW, its not as if accounts get transferred like this all the time, the notation usually occurs when the OC sells/transfers the account to a CA.

 

Ok the example I am thinking of is on flush's cr, Gulf state sold an account to another CA yet still report is as sold and has verified it. If they don't own the account then they shouldn't be reporting it. Thats like me saying, its my food after someone else ate it.

 

Has flush sent a validation letter to Gulf? We all know Gulf couldn't validate a parking ticket, let alone a debt.

Once the validation process has begun, he (or she) can then have a talk with the legal dept. of Gulf state and ask them to delete since they can't validate, and don't even own the account anymore, so validating would be just a waste of resources anway.

 

Dear Mr. flush

You account is not in the possession of Gulf State credit, LLC or OSI Portfolio Services. The account in question was sold to xxxxxx in Austin, TX 78704.

We are reporting to CRAs as Account Sold, This information is True and Accurate and is NOT considered a violation of the FCRA. GSC has made no determination to the validity of the debt. This account is merely reported as Sold.

Since you are not a consumer of Gulf State Credit and we no longer own the account in question, there will be no further communication from GSC in this matter.

By Samuel D Shannon

Manager of Compliance and Risk Management
Aka Dirtbag

Yet its continually verified that this debt is his when its disputed?

 

Just because they sold the account does not protect them from not validating an account.

This is a clear cut violation of:

§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

Per the FTC (opinion ltr CASS) leaving the collection on the consumers report is considered continued collection activity.

Now, did flush send a validation letter already, or was the GSC letter merely from disputing through the CRA? I ask because, if flush sent a validation letter, and GSC did not note the account as "in dispute" that's a violation of the FCRA as well.


Also, just because an account is (allegedly) sold, and is being reported as such, does not prove that the account ever even existed, and a CA (as I said above) is not above federal law when a consumer requests validation just because the account was sold.

 

I have nothing to back this up but, I am of the opinion that when a ca sells an acct that they couldn't validate, IMO is also continued collection activity. I have no idea if this would stand up in court, but it would seem that selling the acct, is collection activity of sorts.

 

OK then basically you confirmed my exact feelings towards this.

Yes, flush sent a validation letter to Gulf State and this is the letter we received in return. Basically this is just to show others what validation is good for. ALOT!

 

Under FCRA as furnishers too, the information has to be accurate, complete and verifiable.

It can't be valid if it can't be verified.

Sassy

 

LKH,

This is the case with my Providian acct. It is showing Providian as reporting the charge-off. It is showing as transferred with my orig balance, not zero.

This is the same company that just sent me a Summons!

SO are they (Providian) in violation? Should I dispute?


Hockeymom
590-EXP
600-TU
?-EQ

 

The weirdest thing was I had a Providian account that went to gulf state for collection. I paid gulf state in full and nothing happened to my scores. About 6 months later providian updated my report as transferred with a 0 balance and I got over a 60 point boost on my score.

 

I would say they are in violation for failure to report complete and accurate info. Also, if a ca is also reporting it, you might want to dispute the original as a duplicate. Read this rule, and then go to the FTC website and read both the FDCPA and FCRA in full.

§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

(a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.

(1) Prohibition.

(A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate.

(B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if

(i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and

(ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.

(C) No address requirement. A person who clearly and conspicuously specifies to the consumer an address for notices referred to in subparagraph (B) shall not be subject to subparagraph (A); however, nothing in subparagraph (B) shall require a person to specify such an address.

(2) Duty to correct and update information. A person who

(A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the person's transactions or experiences with any consumer; and

(B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate,

shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate.

(3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer.

(4) Duty to provide notice of closed accounts. A person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a consumer who has a credit account with that person shall notify the agency of the voluntary closure of the account by the consumer, in information regularly furnished for the period in which the account is closed.

(5) Duty to provide notice of delinquency of accounts. A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action.
(b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute.

(1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall

(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;

(B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i];

(C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and

(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis.

(2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information.
(c) Limitation on liability. Sections 616 and 617 [§§ 1681n and 1681o] do not apply to any failure to comply with subsection (a), except as provided in section 621(c)(1)(B) [§ 1681s].

(d) Limitation on enforcement. Subsection (a) shall be enforced exclusively under section 621 [§ 1681s] by the Federal agencies and officials and the State officials identified in that section.