I called EX today because they sent me some form letter stating they could not provide the required information because I didn't give them the reason I was disputing the account. I told them that I did tell them online why I was disputing. When I asked for a procedure request, on one account, they told me that I could get the same info from my credit report as to who they verified with. On the other account, I asked who they verified with and they said we just verified here at EX? What a freakin joke! Where to go from here? Any thoughts?
Write them again referencing your first procedural request and tell them you are again requesting the specific method they used to verify the account, including name, business name, address and telephone number. Never seen them provide it yet, but at least it will give you a papertrail. L
Get this...One account was listed and being in CH13 BK. I told him that I disputed as I have never filed a CH 13 BK and he changed it to CH7. I didn't say a word in hopes that he was violating a law in some shape or form. I guess he thought he was the verifying authority that day.
Experian is a joke. I was disputing an old charge-off and the EX rep on the phone wouldn't even give me the full account number. He claimed that there was no way that they could confirm that it was actually me on the phone. So I asked him, "Even if I was somebody else, what possible harm could I cause be getting the full account number for a charge-off?". "Well, sir," he said, "you could possibly settle that charge-off account and then open a new fraudulant account with the same company." Yeah, right. What a crock! They tell you that the procedural request can be verified by reading your own credit report and then they don't even provide the full account numbers for the accounts in question. I think that that is pretty good grounds for a good lawsuit.
There is a lawyer in my town that said if they don't give you a proper procedure response you have a really good lawsuit. He said the FRCA requires them to provide an appropriate prodeure. This is the approach he uses to get deletions.
Bigmon, Give us more info. My guess is he probably goes ahead and files suit against the CRA for violating the procedure request component of the FCRA, and then drops the case for deletion? ?????
Sarge, I've sent them 3 procedural request letters and I think they use them for toilet paper. I'll be off for 2 weeks for the holiday break at which point I'll decide if I go the way of the lawsuit.
I figure I have something pretty good going here. Tomorrow I am going to send another procedure request letter. I don't suppose there is a really good letter out there somewhere that I could use as an example for a "deletion or suit" should the procedure request number 2 fail?
Butch, That's exactly what he does. It's a last resort. Lot's of times the threat to sue on lawyer letterhead gets the job done. If not, he files suit based on prodecure violations and then they delete. I haven't met the guy. Just heard about him.
Sarge, This was the last letter I sent EX. Check it out and tell me what you think. I welcome constructive critisism from anyone. Maybe I'm not doing something right. November 25, 2002 CERTIFIED MAIL (ARTICLE NO. 7002 2410 0000 0544 7149) RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Experian Attention: NCAC 701 Experian Way Allen, TX 75013 RE: EXPERIAN CREDIT FILE FOR Miami Blues SOCIAL SECURITY NO.: XXX XX XXXX DATE OF BIRTH: Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing this letter to you in a final goodwill attempt to resolve a most serious matter involving the reporting of inaccurate information on the credit profile maintained for me by Experian. In the spirit of cooperation, I will restate my requests. In a letter to Ms. Carla Blair, Specialist Consumer Affairs Special Services dated September 17, 2002 (certified mail ââ?¬â?? article #7002 0460 0000 5454 2667), I requested the procedures used by Experian to verify Capital One Account No. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. In a form message from Experian dated September 28, I received a very general statement of how the information in question might have been verified. Additionally, the correspondence stated that this account had been previously verified and would not be reinvestigated even though I never requested a reinvestigation of this item. Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Sections 609 and 610 I am entitled to this information. However, Experian has chosen not to comply with this provision of the FCRA. This is a violation of the section 617 of the FCRA, which states: ââ?¬Å?Non-compliance by any consumer reporting agency or user of information which is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of- (1) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure. (2) In the case of successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneyââ?¬â?¢s fees as determined by the court. In a letter dated October 25, 2002, to Ms. Kim Hughes, Specialist Consumer Affairs (certified mail ââ?¬â?? article #7002 2410 0000 0544 7118) I once again made my request for the procedures used to verify the information in question. As of today, approximately one month later I have not yet received a response. Please be advised that Experian received both of these letters and I have enclosed copies of them for your convenience. It appears to me that Experian cannot produce the procedural request information that I have requested regarding this Capital One account. Therefore, I must insist that this inaccurate trade line be deleted immediately. As I previously stated that this is a final goodwill attempt to resolve this matter. It is now up to Experian to respond and take action. Please note that I prefer to resolve this matter amicably; however, I will no longer accept Experianââ?¬â?¢s non-compliance. Failure by Experian to act on my request will not be tolerated and I will pursue any and all legal recourse necessary to address continued non-compliance by Experian and to enforce my rights as a consumer under the FCRA. Your written response is requested within fifteen days of the receipt of this letter. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Respectfully, Miami Blues Enclosures (2)
MiamiBlues, Sounds pretty good to me. I may have to use a version of it after I send my second procedure request. I am hoping they will hang themselves again with a similar response. However, I am going to wait until my "CHOD" disputes have been taken care of. I don't want to rattle them too bad....yet. I have dispute my hard derogs and don't want to pi$$ them off. I'll save it for a New Year's gift to them...LOL Hope to hear from ya on the results. Thanks for replying
And I just noticed that EX has verified tradelines I did not even dispute...All in one day...I think not, he11, they won't even investigate the ones you ask them too. I can't wait for their response when I send a procedural request for all the accounts they verified that I did not dispute.
They did this to my husband also!! I kept faxing them to update two accts. Well, when I got the investigation results, they updated every single negative acct as verified with the new date!! Exp is full of it!
Don't feel bad or alone, Experian also did the same to me, I disputed some Lates that JC Penney placed on my Credit Report, I called JC Penney and they said that they requested them to remove them, I even have the letter from JC stating the removal, all Experian kept doing was adding more new lates, I diputed in August, so they came and put I was late in August, re-disputed in September, they came again and put I was Late in Sep, re-Disputed in October and again they posted new lates. I finally gave up with them, I have my Receipts and Letter from JC Penney, so maybe in January I'll pull my report and start their little game again, I think they left 60 past due....Impossible LOL.
They added lates to one of my accounts also. I think they do it out spite. I did get them to remove 5 out of 6 derogs in the same complaint though, so I'm not as mad about that one account as I should be. I will get the account removed eventually even if I have to sue both EX and the original creditor. Afterall, it costs me very little to make an appearance in small claims court, while it can potentially cost them a lot. Most of the complaints on this board have been centered on EX as of late. Two months ago it was TU, but now they seem to be the easiest. This goes back to my friend's theory that the CRA's take turns rotating this type of behavior. In a few months it will be EQ's turn to be difficult.
