A BIG thanks to all who have helped so far. Well, I think I am making good progress. I have had 4 paid collection accounts deleted, but one that was deleted on EQ was verified on TU (any suggestions on what I should do now?, it is a paid dentist from 1998.) Also had a couple of â??inc in BKâ? deleted, and some 30,60 lates changed to never late. I disputed CH7 on EX and TU as â??$0 liabilities, $0 assetsâ? and â??Federal District Courtâ? last week (now wait and see) So for an update 5/15/03 myfico-633 TU 1-BK 2-Collections 5-Negs 1-Pos EQ 0-BK 3-Collections 4-Negs 1-Pos EX 1-BK 0-Collections 4-Negs 2-Pos 7-6-03 pg-731 TU 1-BK 1-Collections 0-Negs 5-Pos EQ CLEAN 4-Pos EX 1-BK 0-Collections 0-Negs 5-Pos Thanks again to all who have helped so far. quack
one that was deleted on EQ was verified on TU (any suggestions on what I should do now?, it is a paid dentist from 1998.) tquack
one that was deleted on EQ was verified on TU (any suggestions on what I should do now?, it is a paid dentist from 1998.) tquack THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'""""""""" A donkey had an IQ of 186. He had no friends at all though. Even in the animal kingdom, nobody likes a smart-ass
tquack, I understand your frustration, a lot of times I don't understand his reponese either, and it's hard to tell if he's answering first, then quoting you, or quoting you then answering, and many of his answers are one-liners and/or witty sayings. But, more to the point, I's like to know how you went about getting the Paid Collections removed? I've one haunting me since 1998, and one that just popped on my CR a couple of weeks ago. Both were paid off before I ever realized a CA was reporting them to the CRA's. I'm just now learning that there are ways to get these removed, but I don't feel I fully understand yet or know the best method. Thanks in Advance!
Don't know anything about bankruptsies, so can't help you there. So if I'm getting it straight, the collection is now only showing up on TU? Either way, if it's a paid collection from a long time ago, I'll say, ask for validation. Chances are, they won't be able to validate it. Get litiguous on their butts. There are some sample letters around here if you need to know what to say to them.
FedUp2003 and rackt3 I had three PAID collections on EQ and two of those were also on TU, I just disputed on-line with each CRA as "not mine", just checked the box "not my account" and all three on EQ were deleted and one on TU was deleted, the other came back "verified, no change". Does either of you have a link to a validation letter that I can use. I was thinking of using the "nutcase letters", but I have read to use them as a last resort. Thanks for the info quack
for verified responses from cra's try a pr letter (procedural request) this is within your rights...a request for the procedure the cra used to verify...and who they contacted...good way to catch them if they have not exercised reasonable procedures to obtain acurate data and is grounds for a reinvestigation at the very least... i will try to find 'grendel's' letter around here somewhere...it needs editing but it's good. also, fedup...keep in mind that what works for one, may or may not work for another...it's case by case..trial and error...there are so many things effecting results that not everyone is aware of... a good thing to do is to delete old addresses and incorrect forms of your name...any other personal info inaccuracies from your file...because each cra has a different process they use to verify with ca's/creditors...what TU requests from them may or may not be the same thing EQ requests...so it's best to get anything off your report that may make verification easier for any of them...
kbean, Thanks for the info, I found this pr letter in the sample letter database, should I try this before a validation letter? PR letter goes to the CRA and validation letter goes to the CA, is this correct? Also, should these letters be sent with a signature or not? Thanks, quack «Your Name» «Address1» «Address2» «City», «State» «Zip» «Company» «Address1» «Address2» «City», «State» «Zip» «Date» Dear Sir/Madame: This letter is a formal request for the description of the procedures used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the disputed information, including the business name, address, and telephone number of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with this reinvestigation. I am disappointed that you have failed to maintain reasonable procedures to assure complete accuracy in the information you publish, and insist you comply with the law by providing the requested information within the 15 days allowed. For your benefit, and as a gesture of my goodwill, I will restate the relevant dispute: Name of Creditor/Agency, Account #_________ As already stated, the listed item is inaccurate and incomplete, and is a very serious error in reporting. Please supply a corrected credit profile to all creditors who have received a copy within the last 6 months, or the last 2 years for employment purposes. Additionally, please provide the name, address, and telephone number of each credit grantor or other subscriber. Sincerely, «Signature» «Your Name» «Your SSN»
tquack, That looks like a good PR letter, never heard of one or the process till just now. I can certainly use this as well cause I had several online EX disputes come back very quickly as "verified." I just learned that I can request the procedure that the CRA used, and I'll use a version of this same letter myself. Here's the link to the Creditnet FAQ, lot's of good info and links to sample letters, cases, etc ...: Creditner FAQ: http://a1248.svwh.net/BoardFAQ.htm And the actual link to the Sample forms. Creditnet Sample Letters: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/forumdisplay.php?&forumid=25&daysprun= FedUp2003
tquack, fedup... i don't know if you have heard of 'grendell' but he wrote a pr letter and i found a thread where there was lots of controversey regarding his pr letter... you may want to look it over and follow the links that describe the letter... this thread is from another board...but it just goes to show you how the fdcpa/fcra/fcba are interpreted differently and how important it is that you understand how you are manipulating these statutes to work in your favor...before you send the letter... http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5713 here is another link regarding pr/verification... http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5609 and then here is grendell's 1-2 punch http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5025
Well, after reading these links (you were sure right about the controversy) i'm not sure what to send (PR, GRENDELL, NUTCASE, etc.) HELP!!!! Thanks to all, quack
