Ok, I have a judgment that was paid on 2/97, but is showing up on EXP as unpaid. I disputed twice, made sure it was updated at the courthouse, and then disputed again. Verified. So, I sent a proc. request last month. They signed on the 29th of August. Today, after the 15 days are up , I get a letter saying I need to tell them WHY it's inaccurate for them to investigate. I DON"T THINK SO!! They verified it twice, I don't need to tell them anything. THEY need to tell me how it got verified. I also demanded that if they could not tell me who/how verified it, I wanted it deleted. Now, I'm sending them an intent to sue. I don't want to sue, I just want it deleted. Why on earth would I have to tell them what's inaccurate about it in order for them to tell me how it got verified twice??? What do you think???
I was wondering the same thing. If there is a public record appearing on your credit report, isn't it the CRA's responsibility to make sure it is accurately reported? Problem is, how do you prove to them the status (paid/unpaid, whatever) is inaccurate? If we are put in the position of having to prove they are reporting, for instance, a judgment they are showing as unpaid that is actually paid, keeping in mind our untimate objective is deletion, don't we risk supplying too much information -- information that the CRA will use against us to update the public record rather than delete it altogether? When they won't budge unless you send them what you have, what choice is there but to file a lawsuit?
Do you have anything to show it's paid? In the county I live in the public records show if a judgement was settled. Check the county records and see if they have something.
Yes, I have the paperwork that shows it paid, BUT, I disputed it as not mine (it doesn't show an address that is on my report) and I disputed it as wrong info. or whatever that option is on the online dispute. I could just send it in, but then it will be on there longer. I was hoping to actually have it deleted, like it was on the other reports. I'm mad because I asked them for a proc. request, so why do they need more info for that? I would've thought they would need the info for the actual disputes. For the proc. request, shouldn't THAT be info they already have? ? Am I just missing the point here? I know Im being greedy and want it removed, instead of marked paid. I'm also afraid that they will update the date it's due to come off. It's due to come off 1/2004, and that shouldn't change, as the DOLA is date filed, not paid. I just don't trust them to do it right!
You will have a hard time with Experian. I had to get a judgment vacated and sent them the order from the Judge and they still verified for 60 days! I sent an intent to sue and they deleted. Does that get them off the hook with me? NO! Because at the same time I provided a letter from the State of Colorado showing that my tax lien was PAID 5/15/95 (over 7 years ago). Because of screw ups the release was not filed until 6/2002. They are refusing to delete stating that it is their POLICY to use the release date REGARDLESS of what the FCRA states!!! I sent them the exact quote in the intent to sue letter. They still will not delete. I filled out the form to sue today. Will file it tomorrow. I am glad that they have a registered agent convenient to me! LOL
No, they don't need more information. The problem is, none of these CRA's understand the law. They don't even acknowledge such a thing as 'procedures used in the reinvestigation,' beyond those generic procedures they talk about in your results letter. Any time you send a letter, they automatically think it's a dispute. Maybe not invariably, but certainly most of the time. The worker drones who open the mail must not be too bright, or they have one-track minds, or both. I haven't been able to get procedures from Experian, and have unfortunately not been going after it because of other time issues. In a month or so though, I plan to get this matter settled, even if I have to go to court. It doesn't matter if the item got deleted, properly updated, or verified, I am still entitled, by law, to the procedures used.
I agree! At this point I'd almost settle for just updated to paid. I'm afraid that they'll change the dates though. I don't trust Exp. I think I'm going to send one more proc. request, just to cover all my bases. When that is done, I'll send and intent to sue! If they need more info during the times of my disputes, they should have asked for it then, not during the proc. request. I'm so mad! But, I want to cover myself in case I end up in court!!
I disputed a judgment as not mine once, and they verified it and updated it to paid even though it wasn't. Go figure... Can't remember which CRA it was though.
Will you find some web space, scan the documents, and post them? See for http://creditaccuracy.com/0002.htm an example. You may still have to go to court, but the public would surely like to see the proof of what you're saying in the meantime.
What documents would you like me to scan? And for what reason? Just curious. I'm writing a 2nd proc. request right now. Last chance before I send an intent to sue!
Let's face it: The Internet isn't exactly known for its creditbility. So, if you're going to slam somebody in public, you should, at least, be willing to show the proof-- it's only fair. Otherwise, we're only as good as the crackpot message boards. I think the only reason people don't post scans is that it is technically difficult. But, oh, the impact. And think about taking it a step further (since we're regressing to a cave-dwelling-like verbal society): Audio and video. Raise the level.
