If you are likely to have to proceed to suing, you want a mailed copy of your credit report direct from the CRA. You then dispute the errors based on that report, and if the OC or CA verifies instead of removing, you sue for damages under FCRA.
I don't understand what you are saying. I know I need a hard copy of my CR from the CRA to dispute or sue. And I know I need that copy to see if there are errors. Are you saying that if there are errors, dispute the TL and if it comes back verified, sue for damages? If that's the case, should I write (or have a lawyer write) a ITS letter and try to remove that way? Or just straight to suing? What do you think about the backlash theory? Does it sound like that to you too?
"Backlash" might make sense if the CAs are related, especially if they have access to common company databases. The other source of multiple "re-aging" might be if some debt collector is selling portfolios of old debt that they are re-aging to defraud and get a higher price from other debt buyers. There is, after all, no honor among thieves. It is, however, enough of an advantage to debt collectors trying to collect on old debt to both try to put it on reports past the 7 year limit, and claim it is within SOL, that the idea has no doubt occurred to more than one. Among that crowd, it is kind of the modern "philosopher's stone", turning cheap lead into valuable gold. NCO claimed in their re-aging settlement with FTC that the re-aging actually occurred at the company that sold them a batch of debts, but since there are still new reports of NCO re-aging debts, and since their dispute and validation procedures did not adequately protect consumers from reported re-aged accounts (there are many consumer reports of their debt collectors evading attempts by consumers to dispute debts), they are hardly innocent. You have multiple old accounts showing up re-aged on your reports. Once you have disputed the "error" thru the CRA, and you find it is staying, you have no reason to limit your response to just letters. They could have removed it if that was what they are going to do in response to letters. Your next move is whatever will bring this to a conclusion in a finite time, and that must necessarily include the possibility of suing. To be most effective, it makes little sense once you can show damages or justify statutory damages for you to take on a second job of doing it yourself, as you are just saving them your legal fees for a task you have not trained for. Find an attorney with experience in this area, who is willing to take it on contingency, and pass the matter off to him. The fact that the courts can award attorney's fees on top of damages to you actually makes it more likely that the other side will want to quickly cave, and even if you are awarded only a small amount beyond your legal costs, it is worth it to get these accounts remove.
So this seems like just a re-aging thing, that these companies are rolling the dice and hoping they get paid, and the timing is just a coincindence? I don't know if the CA that I feel is angry and causing backlash is related to Palisades or not. I'm afraid to give too much specific info here, but if it's ok, I could email it to you. I thought perhaps CA's had connections to other CA's, maybe not all of them, but maybe have some good working (and sharing) relationships with each other, and that this was happening here. You are suggesting handle this like a normal dispute - not mine, or SOL?
