Nutcase Letter Success!!!!

Hello All,

I just wanted to share some good news. I started my credit repair as a newbie on 07/01/02. Got all 3 reports 3 weeks later, and seeked help from the CN family. I sent out my first nutcase letter on 08/14/02 to HUMBOLDT BANK for a pd charge off (opened 10/96 and charged off 08/99).

Just received a letter from Humboldt that they will DELETE THE TRADELINE from all 3 CB!!!!

I know I have along way to go, but I want to say "THANK YOU" to everyone on here and thanks for this board.

I am learning each day. I am in the process of disputing old unpaid CO and a ChexSystems NSF. I hope to tackle a few CA in Oct., so I can prepare for CHOD.

UNLV34

 

Thanks DOC!!!!

Making the list is a blessing, but only with help from the CN family. I really did not know alot of things when I was damaging my credit, but studying this board and following the great advice on here is helping me on the road to recovery.

UNLV34

"Creditors beware, I now have added DOC on my side against the fight."

 

Welcome Chytona,

I am still a newbie. Take time on here and really study the post of others on here. I just started my credit repair in July and already saw an improvement with the advice on here.

A nutcase letter is used to send to the OC when you have a pd charge off or a pd debt on your CR that is reported negatively by the CRA's. Do a search on "nutcase letters" and you will see how effective they are in getting things removed.

Welcome to the CN family ...

UNLV34

If you need a copy of the letter, let me know ...

 

Hey Chytona,

I got a copy of the nutcase letter I used with success (2 deleted accounts). Don't forget to send this to the OC, and send it CRRR. Here ya go and Good Luck ...




< Date >

< CREDITOR's NAME >
< Creditor's address >
< City, State, Zip Code >

Re: Account Number : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Sir or Madam:

It has come to my attention that < Creditor's Name > has in place a derogatory remark on my credit bureau files pursuant to my having paid you what you claimed that I owed you and < Creditor's Name >.

When I paid you, I relied upon the belief that you would do the honorable thing and remove your nasty and derogatory comments from my credit bureau files which you not only failed to do but actually changed my listing to paid charge-off which is a far worse rating in the eyes of any potential future creditors. In doing so, you obviously failed to realize that the Doctrine of Estoppel directly applies to this type of situation and is cause and more than sufficient grounds for my pending lawsuit against you for punitive damages in whatever amount a jury might deem appropriate for your violation of the estoppel doctrine of law.

Here is what the Doctrine of Estoppel is and how it applies to your violations of it. In order for the doctrine of estoppel to apply, the party of the first part (you, the collector) must make some statement or engage in some conduct upon which I have relied and acted upon which later proved to be to my detriment or prejudice.

In your communications with me you told me that you would update my credit reports as soon as I had paid the debt to you. Quite naturally, I assumed and relied upon your statement to that effect to mean that you would mark the account as "paid as agreed" or even quite possibly remove it entirely. Instead, the entry on my credit reports still reflects a status of <XXX days > past due. Additionally, this account is reported as "Paid Charge-Off." This single erroneous entry has caused me to be denied credit as the attached documents attest. It is currently preventing me from obtaining favorable terms on a mortgage. I have asked for correction, both directly and through the Credit Reporting Agencies. Each time it has merely been re-verified. I should point out, though I have no doubt you are aware, that each of these instances constitutes a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and is separately actionable. Applicable sections of the FCRA violated by Chevron include (but is not limited to) Sections 605 (c)(1), 623 (a)(1)(A), 623 (a)(1)(B), 623 (a)(2), and 623 (a)(3), with multiple documented violations of each section.

I am quite confident that both you and a court of law will agree that my assumption was a perfectly reasonable assumption for an average debtor to make. And so, based on that assumption I agreed to pay the debt and in fact did so in <Date account was paid > whereupon you actually worsened my credit bureau scores and that was most definitely to my detriment and prejudice and provided me with grounds to sue you for the full amount paid plus attorney fees, court costs and whatever additional punitive damages a jury might award.

I have provably asked for your organization to correct the erroneous information in my credit reports, yet the false derogatory information still persists in my credit report on numerous occasions. Rest assured that I have kept ample records, consisting of (but not limited to) Certified Mail Return Receipts, phone logs, periodic copies of my credit reports showing the erroneous listing (the ONLY negative listing in Trans Union, Equifax and Experian reports), and letters of rejection for new lines of credit that directly attribute their refusal to extend credit to the presence of a currently past due on my Trans Union, Experian and Equifax credit reports.

These would constitute provable damages, would they not? I do think they would, particularly in light of Nelson v Chase Manhattan. Therefore, unless you move to cure your error and completely remove your derogatory tradelines from my public records, within 15 days of your receipt of this letter and provide proof of your cooperation with my demand in the form of mailing, faxing, or e-mailing me a copy of your UDF which you transmitted to the credit bureaus demanding the removal I shall immediately move to file against you in a court of law with jury trial demanded.

I am quite well aware that you have a contractual agreement with the credit bureaus which covers this problem and supposedly prevents you from compliance with my demands, but a contract which is in violation of the law is null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever and therefore cannot be enforced either by you or upon you. Your so-called contract with the credit bureaus will not protect you for your willful violation of my rights which are protected by the Doctrine of Estoppel.

Your failure to cure and provide me with proof of your having cured the problem within 15 days after your provable receipt of this letter will be considered sufficient reason to refer this matter to the courts for their resolution.

While you may think that I have no right of private action due to the way FCRA is worded, let me hasten to assure you that such beliefs are quite ungrounded and false. That point has been vividly illustrated by the ruling of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Nelson v Chase Manhattan, March 3, 2002 in which the court pointed out that Section 1681s-2(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act creates a cause of action for a consumer against a furnisher of erroneous credit information. But my pending suit against you will not be about FDCPA nor FCRA but about how you have damaged me after I acted in good faith in dealing with you.

Thank you and I look forward to resolving this most expeditiously.

Sincerely,


< YOUR NAME >

cc: Gregory Sheffer, esq and Cliff Chanler, esq
Federal Trade Commission
California Attorney General
Ohio Attorney General




UNLV34