Hi I have previously posted on this topic. Basically I disputed Midland Credit Management, who never validated nor has bothered to respond to anything I have sent them. They came off my TU and EQ but Experian continues to verify it. The outcome was 'Reviewed" and the Status is listed as NO STATUS. What I am wondering is whether I can still dispute this once more for a third time during the CHOD and have some success. What should I say? Also I called up and asked for a procedural request to which the CRA phone representative was not very helpful. I had to read off the actual Experian report to make her understand that they are required by law to provide how they contacted the CA and so on. So in response they sent me the report again with some BS explanation on the front that says some BS of how someone calls up the CA or it is done electronically or by mail. As to exactly who contacted who and how it was exactly verified, nothing was said. Thanks
I'm in a similar situation with Asset Acceptance. No response from them on any of my letters and No Status but Exp continues to verify. It seems to me like Exp isn't really verifying anything; how could they possible be when the other two CRA's immediately remove the entry, the CA doesn't seem to respond to any correspondence and it's listed with No Status? At the very least, you would think the status would get updated. I'm not sure of the best way to handle this either but would love to hear opinions or experiences from people who have dealt with this kind of problem. At this point, I'm thinking an Intent to File Suit letter to the CA, and possibly to Experian, although I am going to try and dispute one last time during CHOD.
Same exact story here, chucky. My guess is that they verify it electronically which is why they cannot provide any info to the procedure request. I am going to try to dispute it one more time during the CHOD and take a litigious tone if that does not work. I mean, I would just love to find out exactly how they verify it being that it came off so quick the other reports and there has been zero correspondence from Midland since the validation over 3 months ago. If any of the Creditnet gurus have any ideas on what to put into the CHOD letter, I'm all ears. I guess I should have a separate letter just for the Midland. I plan to dispute only one other item which could be a separate letter. Thanks
I have the same issue with IC Systems. My intention is to take IC Systems to court as they have not responded at all. I will also dispute with Experian and collect as much as I can from both parties.
I have the same problem with IC systems and one other ca agency...IC systems did validate (really) but they won't settle for deletion, which is why I don't want to pay... since my mortgage refin is screwed up due to midland,... maybe I should pay and try to nutcase them off, I'll see what happens post CHOD
Okay, Mecro, I honestly believe that your post has the most pertinent and difficult question on this board RIGHT NOW! That's why no one is answering! THE VETS ARE AFRAID ~ EVERYONE'S AFRAID~ But seriously, this may be unexplored territory. Some CA's are catching on and putting this comment on people's reports which is negative but not really ???? It's very ingenious of them. SOOOOO Here's my feeble stab at it. I still believe this falls under "continued collection activity" so the validation, estoppel, and (it seems almost necessary for this one) a lawsuit, are the best route for this. Unfortunately, your question has been asked at least 1 a day for the past several weeks. and ALL OF THE VETS ARE SCARED TO ANSWER. So i commend you on your tenacity to keep bumping it. (hopefully, someone's ego and sense of helpfulness, will force them to reply, so that we can get some meaningful discussion on this.)
Here's my opinion for what it's worth: The "no status" remark on a regular trade line has no real weight (positive or negative) on a credit report. All it does is show a possible balance but know payment information. Now from my own personal experience, I made the incredibly stupid mistake of disputing it, and it nicely was updated from "no status" to "120 days late". Moral of the story; leave well enough alone and only concentrate your efforts on NEGATIVE items. I realize some people get over zealous and want everything 100% perfect and exactly the way want it - but unfortunately you may cause more harm then good, and this is one of those times. -Sal
Well if it is not a negative entry, then I would leave it alone. But it is a collection account so who knows for sure. I already did the validation, esttopel course so my choices were either to do CHOD or to send an intent to sue (like tnobles did with FCNA) to BoA, the OC. Anyway BUMP. Come on Creditnet Vets, lets at least explore the issue
Gang, Some of you waste a lot of time playing around with these people and one letter after another. You should have filed suit a long time ago. Though I realize your desire to handle your situation without all the fanfair of a suit, it should be obvious to you that the drastic elevation of pressure and motivation a suit provides, is necessary at a certain point. Once you get to that point continuing to send letters and "hope for the best" is actually defeating your cause. SUE THEIR ASS!!! Get them served with a case number and allow a little time for them to assimilate the fact that you're appearnetly serious afterall. Then they will be in touch with you, right smartly, to "settle".
There you have it, Mecro. I also prescribe to this philosophy. . .but i know a lot of people on this board are "lawsuit adverse" If you feel this is an option for you, i would suggest reading Lizardking's thread on "3 month cleanup." LK is still the honorary CN grandfather of suing CRAs or CAs for deletions. LOTS of good info in his lawsuit threads. . .
