BUTCH, et al... *H*E*L*P*

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by jam237, Aug 15, 2003.

  1. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: BUTCH, et al... *H*E*L*P*

    On the June 30th, letter...

    Re: CREDIT REPORT

    We have received your inquiry forwarded by the Better Business Bureau... Yada... Yada... Yada...

    The sixth bulleted paragraph reads.

    "Your monthly billing statement that was generated on April 18, 2000, and an ending balance after charge-off of $988. After the date of the statement, additional charges totalling $98 were assessed. A statement wa not generated after charge off, to reflect these charges; therefore they can not be verified. This being stated, adjustments were submitted totalling $98, and as of the date of this letter your balance is $988, which remains due to us. Since statements are not generated on charged off accounts it will be your responsibility to track the balance until paid in full."

    On the July 23rd letter (the snippy, this matter is closed. letter" ;)

    We have received your additional inquiry. Your additional issues have been resolved in the following manner.

    The first bulleted paragraph reads.

    "Within our letter to you dated, June 30, 2003, we advised that no adjustments would be made to your balance. This is correct as all fees charged to the account prior to charge off were valid; however, as stated in the aforementioned letter, since statements are not generated after charge off, we could not verify charges that posted to your account after charge off. This being stated, as part of our investigation, we submitted an adjustment in the amount of $98, which is the total amount of charges assessed to your account after charge off. This adjustment corrected your balance to $988, which was the balance on your last statement generated on April 18, 2000."
     
  2. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: BUTCH, et al... *H*E*L*P*

    Oh, according to the CA; allegedly, the OC had an immediate recall on dispute provision. The CA never put anything in writing that the account was recalled, just all the following correspondence came through the OC itself.
     
  3. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: BUTCH, et al... *H*E*L*P*

    I just finished the letter to the CRAs; dated for Wednesday.

    I was almost getting a little doubtful of the time frame, because apparently they did parts of the c/o in March (on the 6 months from September which the law requires), and another part of the c/o in April. Strange that March's statement moved to a $0 bal, then the April statement it went back up to what is now the new balance.

    But, since the actual c/o was done in March, it would back up the first missed payment as being in September, so I should be safe sending the dispute on October 1.
     
  4. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: BUTCH, et al... *H*E*L*P*

    I just put the 20 page letters in the mail to all 3 CRAs... :)

    Hopefully they get signed for on or around Monday... ;)
     
  5. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: BUTCH, et al... *H*E*L*P*

    Update...

    I received my first correspondences back from the dispute...

    Eq - updated balance
    TU - "We can't accept the documentation provided."
    Ex - still waiting...

    Now, Eq appears to have an achieles heel on their tradeline, it is still listed as being "Open". ;)

    You would think that Charged-Off/OPEN would be a red-flag that their is something wrong with the data that they are receiving.

    Actually looking at the report, almost everything is showing up as still being open.

    I won't know until I pull an updated ConsumerInfo.com report whether Eq updated to list the account in dispute.

    Of course, reading the new EQ reports is enough to make you go cross-eyed... :) This is the second of the new reports that I've gotten from them, and it looks like it takes a CPA to make heads or tails out of it... :)
     
  6. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: BUTCH, et al... *H*E*L*P*

    Yeppers,

    I figured as much Jam.

    As much as I hate to say it you're getting painfully close to lawsuit time. As I stated earlier I didn't think they'd budge.

    Did TU give a reason for not accepting your evidence?

    :)
     
  7. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: BUTCH, et al... *H*E*L*P*

    Just the standard...

    "We are unable to accept the documentation you sent. However, TransUnion will contact the source of the disputed information to advise them of your dispute. We will ask them to verify the accuracy of the reported information. When the investigation is completed, you will receive a written response and/or a copy of your updated credit report to notify you of the results."

    However, I look at even this as a positive, since we know that TU won't forward the 20 pages of documentation to the OC, the OC has no idea that they're already on the cusp of being sued, and will think that its just a standard 'innocent' dispute... :) just like they told me to do if the CRA wouldn't accept their letter as an update... :)

    BTW: would the letter to the OC be a good time to mention that not only has the account now reached the SOL, but under federal law, I'm judgement proof... :) but they aren't... :)
     
  8. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: BUTCH, et al... *H*E*L*P*

    11 violations for not reporting disputed status (11 violations from september 25 - september) - [Section 623(a)(1), and Section 623(a)(3)]
    3 violations for not updating the account after realizing that they were reporting inaccurate, or unverifiable information (june 30, july, august, september) [Section 623(a)(1), and Section 623(a)(2)]
    -----
    14 violations per CRA
    x 3 CRAs (gee, it comes in handy that there are so many - and maybe they're reporting to all of the minor CRAs as well... :))
    -----
    42 violations of the FCRA

    (When TransUnion updates, if the information is still incorrect, or the notice of dispute isn't included it'll be actionable offense #1, with the 42 unactionable offenses to prove willful noncompliance (and the fact that i notified them three additional times in writing that they were not reporting what they are now saying, and that they were required by law to do so. The same with Experian, if they request the OC for verification. #2)

    They may have a bye with Eq not reporting the notice of dispute, since Eq didn't contact them, however Eq doesn't for not maintaining adequite safeguards, and my letter included that I was disputing that the account was not marked as being in dispute as required by law, and their letters confirming the dispute was received... :)

    The key in my letter to the OC would be to just outline that they had committed at least 42 (43, or 44) violations of the FCRA, and not to mention whether all of the violations were in fact actionable... :) and that each actionable violation is subject to up to $1,000.00 in damages, so I would strongly encourage their company to delete their tradeline within 5 days from the confirmed date of receipt, and to provide the proof of deletion from all three CRAs immediately, before I am forced to file for damages on the actionable offenses committed by your company.

    They could see the 42 violations = 42,000.00, but I didn't say that would be the amount of the suit... :)
     
  9. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: BUTCH, et al... *H*E*L*P*

    Butch, how does this sound as an angle of attack on Eq's verification...

    On the 20 pages of documentation that were included with the dispute, it states

    On the November 20, 2002 letter "charged off your account, due to non-payment on March 19, 2000."

    The same thing is repeated on the January 30, 2003 letter.

    On the March 12, 2003 letter the same sentence is rephrased "This account was closed by XXXX due to non-payment on March 19, 2000."

    On the letter from the presidents office dated June 30, 2003, it says "When the full minimum payment required was not received for six (6) consecutive months, your account was charged off on March 19, 2000."

    --

    Since the March 12, 2003 letter explicitly stated THIS ACCOUNT WAS CLOSED ON XX/XX/XXXX.

    It would appear to be a direct violation for Eq updating the account with knowingly inaccurate information, based on the material that was presented to them. ;)

    I would have said that they only looked at the first few pages to make their decision, but my letter didn't include any mention of the new balance, and in order to get to the copy of the final statement, they had to go through the chronologically ordered letters from them first. :)

    § 607. (b) "Accuracy of report. Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.", since they were provided documentation on the status of the account as closed, and the date of closure, both of which they decided to not report, thereby they willfully, and knowingly decided to report knowingly inaccurate information in regards to the dispute.

    --

    Here is the letter that I am considering sending, basically its a re-send of the original one just now disputing the new information (until I find out whether they updated it to include the dispute notice.)

    Enclosed please find my re-dispute for the dispute which your company completed on October 9, 2003, under confirmation number XXXXXXXXXX.

    The documentation which was enclosed with that dispute was apparently willfully and knowingly disregarded by your company in the partial completion of the dispute, so now your company is willfully, and knowingly reporting inaccurate information.

    On the letter dated March 12, 2003 the furnisher stated "This account was closed by XXXX due to non-payment on March 19, 2000."

    However, your company willfully, and knowingly disregarded this fact in order to inaccurately report that this account was open, with no closure date. In violation of § 607. (b), under which, your company is liable for civil damages in the amount of up to $1,000.00, plus all expenses required for the successful completion of actions against your company to successfully enforce the FCRA.

    Again, I am demanding the immediate, and perminate deletion of this trade line off of your consumer credit report in compliance with Section 611(a)(5)(A), and Section 611(a)(8) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, in exchange for this just deletion of this inaccurate, and unverifiable trade line, I will not seek the civil damages to which I am entitled for your companies willfull, and knowing disregard of § 607. (b),

    This letter also serves as a procedural request for the verification which was completed on October 9, 2003, as well as this verification request.
     
  10. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member


    Hi Jam,

    I don't see why you just don't go file. That's what I'd do.

    I see 4 violations, 2 in writing, just in this first post.

    I believe once you "nuke em all" and let the judge sort it out, they'll all be in touch, right smartly, to settle the problem.

    I'm really stuck as to what else you can do to get resolution because once they figure out you're willing to "play around" for an entire year, they'll push you for another year.

    I know you'd prefer not to actually sue, but I see no alternative at this point.

    "Some people are thrust into greatness."


    :)

    .
     
  11. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Maybe you could get the OC on the phone at this point and offer 20-30% to settle w/deletion.

    You've been a sufficient pain in the butt.

    :)

    .
     
  12. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Well, I think Equifax has a problem hiring less than 1st graders, I exploded at two Team II people today on another account that was verified today, basically immediately on receipt of my disptute (this will be in another post though... :))
     
  13. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    B1 - :)

    TransUnion updated today, w/o notice of dispute. :)

    Ex is still outstanding, est completion date 11/05/03, PG is still showing the 'old' tradeline information, so no update has been made to the information yet...

    So, so far, no news (on the Ex front) is good news, it looks as if there may only 1 (b) violation, but hey, 1 (b) is still 1 (b)... :)
     
  14. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    I'm stayin alert for updates Jam.

    :)

    .
     
  15. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    2 (b) Experian updated w/o notice of dispute...

    So now its official... :)

    All three CRAs are now reporting the account w/o notice of dispute, and Eq is reporting that the account is still open.

    Was I correct in how to calculate the number of (a) violations against the OC for failing to update? (One a month x three cras x eleven months; for failing to notate the dispute, and one a month x three cras x three months; for failing to update the changed balance.)

    Plus, is the flat out writen refusal to update the account an additional violation. You had said you saw in the first post about 4 violations alone.

    Basically, I want to make sure that I have all my i's dotted, and t's crossed in counting every possible violation that I can, even if they're only a violations, and if need be parlaying the a violations to show that the b violations are willful; with a signed confession no less... :)
     
  16. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    .
     
  17. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    I'm going to try to hit the CRAs over the head with a billy club before even thinking of contacting the OC, again... unless of course, i do it through the BBB again... ;) and with TU, and Experian, I can try to point out since the furnisher has new verified the documentation which was provided with my original dispute, they now are required to take that documentation into consideration. ;)

    I told the OC in my first letter that I would treat anything that they put into writing as a writen lie, and they've proven me right... :)

    Anyhow, I slightly updated my Eq letter; and I can use the same letter (just take out the references to the account being reported as being open.)

    "The documentation which was enclosed with that dispute was apparently willfully and knowingly disregarded by your company in the partial completion of the dispute, so now your company is willfully, and knowingly reporting inaccurate information, in direct violation of § 607 (b), and § 611(a)(4) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

    On the letter dated March 12, 2003 the furnisher explicitly stated that "This account was closed by XXXX due to non-payment on March 19, 2000."

    However, your company willfully and knowingly disregarded this fact in order to inaccurately report that this account is still open, with no closure date.

    Furthermore, your company also willfully, and knowingly disregarded the need for there to be a furnisher provided notice of dispute under § 623(a)(3), which was addressed in the beginning of my dispute letter, again your company willfully, and knowingly disregarded this fact, and the supporting documentation corroborating the disputed status of this trade line.

    Both of these facts are in direct violation of § 607 (b), and § 611(a)(4), under which, your company is liable for civil damages in the amount of up to $1,000.00, plus all expenses required for the successful completion of actions against your company to successfully enforce the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

    Again, I am demanding the immediate, and permanent deletion of this trade line off of your consumer credit report in compliance with § 611(a)(5)(A), and § 611(a)(8) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, in exchange for this just deletion of this inaccurate, and unverifiable trade line, I will not seek the civil damages to which I am entitled for your companies willful, and knowing disregard of § 607 (b), and § 611(a)(4),

    The addition of a consumer comment of disputed status, does not override the furnishers requirements under § 623(a)(3), nor does it remedy your companyâ??s liability for willfully and knowingly reporting the disputed trade line without the furnishers notice of dispute required under § 623(a)(3).

    This letter also serves as a procedural request for the verification which was completed on October 9, 2003, as well as this verification request; as well as a procedural request for this verification request."
     
  18. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    Oh, one last thing, would you suggest taking about two to three weeks to proof-read the letters to the CRAs, to make sure that everything is perfect before mailing. *cough* *cough*
     
  19. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    i put the letter in the mail yesterday to all three cras...

    i'm expecting at least ex to 'frivelous' me, unless they actually decide to honor the procedures, and to actually include a specific procedural answer instead of their...

    when you contact us to dispute a listing... blah... blah... blah...
     
  20. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    update...

    TU updated again - no notice of dispute

    EQ updated again - closed by consumer - no notice of dispute

    EX I originally received a 'we can't find your credit report' reply. I sent the request again to NCAC & Special Services; received on December 11th, the investigation isn't showing up either on the dispute your report, or the status of ongoing investigations, and all I received to the procedural request was the standard blow-off generic response.

    Now, when EQ updated as closed I took a PG EQ score hit of 3 points, so I am wondering if I should leave the negative there for now. If EQ deletes the other pending dispute, this account will be my only negative tradeline on EQ. No idea if the no negatives score boost would counter-act the 'age' boost of a 1998 account or not. But the 3 point loss on just 'closing' the account has me wondering.

    And go back to sending the presidents office (through the BBB) a second complaint that they have still reported the account incorrectly in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, dispite me requesting the CRAs to request correct information from them, not once, but TWICE; and since I have a WRITEN ADMISSION from L. F. of the Presidents Office that they have no intentions of complying with the FCRA in the matter of their company's willfull and knowing reporting of knowingly inaccurate information to the CRAs.
     

Share This Page