A question about the nutcase letter

try this:

Collection Bureau
123 Any St.
Leech City 12345-6789

April 24, 2002

Re: Paid Account#

To Whom it may concern,

I am dismayed that your company is continuing to report the above mentioned account. I paid it with the understanding that the negative trade line was to be removed from my credit files. I would like to point out that I first became aware of this account when I pulled a credit report. Your company violated the FDCPA (15 USC 1692g) by not informing me of my rights (mini-miranda) within 5 days of first communication of this account. Communication is defined in 15 USC 1692a: "The term "communication" means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium."

Not only do you continue to report this item, but you are also reporting it inaccurately. Since I was never informed of my rights to dispute all or any portion of this debt, I shall do so now. Since you are required by federal law to report only accurate information to Credit Reporting agencies, I request that you provide full validation of the account in question. By this I don't mean validation that you have my mailing address, or that this is being reported as you think accurate. What I am requesting is the following information:

1. Please evidence your authorization under 15 USC 1692 (e) and 15 USC 1692 (f) in this alleged matter.
2. What is your authorization of law for your collection of this alleged debt?
3.Please evidence your authorization to do business or operate in the state of __________.
4. Please evidence proof of the alleged debt, including specifically the alleged
contract or other instrument bearing my signature.
5. Any insurance claims made by any creditor regarding this account.
6. A complete itemization of services and/or equipment provided.
7. The amounts, if any charged to profit and loss by the original creditor.

If the requested information cannot be provided, I insist that this negative trade line be removed from all major Credit Reporting Agencies. If it is not, please note 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 (Nelson v. Chase Manhattan). You have 30 days from receipt of this letter to comply. If my request is ignored, I will use any and all legal means at my disposal to correct this matter.

Thank You,
signature
My Street address
My Town

 

or this one may be better:

Joe Debtor
1234 anystreet
Humpsville,CO 09876-0000
Januark 32, YYYY
Phone (000) 123 9876


Sleazebag Collectors
4321 Dumpster Street
Cheatum, DN 00000-0000

Dear Sirs:

It has come to my attention that you have placed a derogatory remark on my credit bureau files pursuant to my having paid you what you claimed that I owed you and Shady Loan Co.

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.

I am quite confident that both you and a court of law will agree that such is a perfectly reasonable assumption for an average debtor to make. And so upon that assumption I agreed to pay the debt and in fact did so on DD/MM/YYYY 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.

Unless you move to cure your error and remove your derogatory remarks 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 me a copy of your UDF which you transmitted to the credit bureaus demanding it's 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 contractural 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 whatever 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 proveable 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 pointed out by the ruling of the U.S. 9th Cir. Ct. of Appeals in the case of Nelson v Chase, 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.


Cure or be sued. It's up to you.

Sincerely

 

How bout this:

I am writing you regarding a notice on my credit report. It seems as though I have a paid account with your offices and that your company has deemed it necessary to report this listing on my credit file.

This letter is to inform you that I paid this account under duress and prior to knowing my rights as provided by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (You can list the type of â??duressâ? here by stating â??I was receiving numerous harassing phone calls from your company and paid this alleged debt just to get your people to leave me aloneâ? etc.)

Now that I am aware of my rights as provided by State and Federal Law, I am now disputing the fact that your agency ever had any legal right to collect on this alleged debt and that your agency has any legal right to report this account on my credit file. I have attached a request for complete validation on this alleged account and you are instructed to fill it out, attach copies of all requested documentation and return it to me within 15 days from your receipt of this letter.

If you cannot provide complete validation as provided by law, then your offices are instructed to IMMEDIATELY request full deletion of this account from my master credit file and all 3 major credit bureauâ??s. You are also instructed to send me a copy of such request for deletion either via fax or US Mail.

If you fail to respond at all, I will turn this matter over to my legal counsel for suit, file complaints with the Better Business Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission and your State Attorney Generalâ??s Office.

 

Re: A question about the nutcase le

Hi, Javan, just a reminder... Try to remember to give credit to the authors of letters you post. (That way, not only do the original creators get the credit they deserve, but if someone has further questions they can go right to the source.) The first suggestion you offered was Betacredit's "Son of Nutcase" letter. The second letter was Bill Bauer's (creditwrench.com) "Estoppel for Paid Chargeoffs" letter. I don't know where the third one came from, but follow up so we'll all know!

Doc

 

Re: A question about the nutcase le

I wrote the first one Doc. Based it on a few letters here, but figured if I told them I was under the impression they'd delete, they wouldn't argue the point. I got the idea from your nutcase letter. Thanks, it got one deletion for me, have it out to another CA reporting "settled for less than full amount".

Gib

 

Re: A question about the nutcase le

Great, Gib!!! See, I wasn't even giving the right person the credit! Well, great move on that, and congratulations on the deletion!

Doc

 

Re: A question about the nutcase le

I love Bill Bauer's letter. I'll have to send a version of that next if they ignore my first.

Gib