I'm still kicking around my options on what to do (not sure if EX is ignoring the dispute or not; I received the blow-off "procedural" form response, and the trade line isn't showing up as in dispute on the dispute status, or the online dispute pages.) Still waiting to get the physical copy of the Eq verification for it, and the other account which both apparently were updated (this one as closed); and the other one with a mystery 90-119 days late notation.
I temporarily put this one in the back burner. I finally got a (LATE) REVIOUSLY INVESTIGATED: from Experian. They tacked it on to a results report for another investigation that they completed on the Dec 22nd (they received the second copy of the dispute, since they 'we couldn't bring up your credit file'd the first one on Dec 11th.) And since -closing- the account on Equifax caused a point loss, I'm not sure whether or not getting it removed will be helpful, or hurtful in the long run. Two other companys went to the front burner. 1) refuses to validate -- verification is only what is required; we did that, our responsibilities to the consumer under the fdcpa are done. - the verification is a 1998 one-page illegible fax, no less, without even an indicator if it was actually from the oc. 2) trying to get Equifax to remedy my Equifax brain teaser -- where they told vb that "we're reporting date of the first delinuqency as the date opened." (when even that doesn't jive since that month they said it was 90-119 days late.) for an account that the ftc forced them to settle with on fraud, and they tried to tell vb that "his account wasn't a part of the settlement" even though they're letter forced by the ftc proves otherwise... i should have asked vb to relay the message that if they are claiming that i paid the $5100+ to them after the settlement, i want a refund...
EQ!!! I just signed up for PG again, and now EQ opened the account back up again. I am hoping that they 'undid' the investigation(S) while vb or the person whom she assigned to look into the other account; the brain-teaser... I was supposed to get a call back from vb late Wednesday, when i surprised her first thing in the morning with a call to ask if she got the fax that i faxed her two+ weeks ago... Well, of course, there is a good thing about it being re-opened , I got those few points back, at least temporarily...
OK - Got all your updated info Jam. Here's what I'm thinkin; We may find remedy by going straight past [bypass] all the trouble makers and directly to the CRA's. Any CRA is under an expanded burden if the consumer can demonstrate that the source of information they are receiving, [and subsequently reporting] may be "unreliable". The Cushman Case: We further hold that "whether the credit reporting agency has a duty to go beyond the original source will depend" on a number of factors. Id. One of these is "whether the consumer has alerted the reporting agency to the possibility that the source may be unreliable or the reporting agency itself knows or should know that the source is unreliable." (Underline added). Since the FTC has basically shut thse clowns down once & for all, documentation abounds that the "source is beyond unreliable. They're criminal". Here's a dispute I filed with 2 CRA's regarding an "unreliable" (alleged) medical debt. The Foxy Mrs. Butch 123 West Street Anytown, USA 12345 Date Credit Reporting Agency Cert Mail # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (RRR, 2 pages + enclosures) Regarding erroneous listing on my credit report. Listing: LISTED: xx/xx RPTD: xx/xx AMT: $XXX DLA: xx/xx AGENCY/CLIENT: NItwit Collections STATUS/SERIAL: Unpaid (12345678). Dear Sirs: I understand your desire to have me demonstrate my identity. However I don't believe I am required to provide all that inconsequential information on your questionnaire. This request is properly notarized and a copy of my Social Security card is enclosed. After demanding validation of this debt pursuant to FDCPA, I received yet another pathetic attempt to collect from Nitwit Collections, (As identified by Linda XXXXX). I received a form from the collection agency. This was the first time I was made aware of the identity of the alleged original creditor, "Whatchamacallit Footinmouth Co". The form asked me to sign so they can obtain documentation from the original creditor, and also contained an agreement, again requesting my signature, that I would agree to be responsible for this erroneous bill, (copy enclosed). It is perfectly obvious they cannot produce the information, which I am entitled, by law, to demand. Since I made this request, which they received on, XX/XX/XXXX, I've done my homework. This Doctors name is Dr. Footinmouth, who is alleged to be the provider of service. Incredibly Dr. Footinmouth, (if he really is a dr.) is now doing time in a federal penitentiary for making false claims to collect insurance, writing himself prescriptions to feed his drug habit, etc., among other crimes. The indictment, (which I obtained off the net) states: "The defendant, Dr. Footinmouth, filled out a bunch of erroneous claim forms, and filed same to insurance carriers for money." (Copy enclosed). Dr FIM admitted his guilt. It's obvious that said "insurance carriers" are not the ONLY recipient of these fraudulent documents/claims because I now am being billed for something for which I DO NOT owe. CUSHMAN, v. TRANS UNION CORPORATION 115 F.3d 220, *; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 13576, ** We hold that in order to fulfill its obligation [**16] under § 1681i(a) "a credit reporting agency may be required, in certain circumstances, to verify the accuracy of its initial source of information." Henson, 29 F.3d at 287. We further hold that "whether the credit reporting agency has a duty to go beyond the original source will depend" on a number of factors. Id. One of these is "whether the consumer has alerted the reporting agency to the possibility that the source may be unreliable or the reporting agency itself knows or should know that the source is unreliable." (Underline added). I am justifiably very upset with this situation. You now have, in hand, sufficient information to prove my position, that this information provider is beyond unreliable, they're criminal. You have now been officially alerted that the reporting agency, or the source of reporting IS unreliable. And you now know, or should know same. Therefore, I require immediate, permanent removal of this erroneous item from my credit report without delay. This letter in no way should be considered a waiver of my right to pursue this further. Regards, The Foxy Mrs. Butch Enclosures: Authorization to release information and agreement to pay from Nitwit Collections. (1 page) Copy of my original dispute to you, turned down for ID purposes. (1 page) Your Unfilled Questionnaire. (1 page) Plea Agreement Case # CD! 222 333 Against Dr. Footinmouth (1 page) The Information, Case # CD! 222 333 Against Dr. Footinmouth (3 pages) Entry of order from State Medical Board (1 page) Permanent Surrender Certificate (2 pages) ******************************************************* Sworn to before me and subscribed by The Foxy Mrs. Butch, in my presence this ______ day of _________, 200X ___________________ Notary Public ALL TL's were GONE in 48 hours. . ..
Welp... Now I am ready to try hitting this one again... THANKFULLY, after 10 months of constant disputing the one other account was finally deleted with the FMB, adding the up-to-the-minute Johnson v. MBNA ruling... So... "Since on the November 20, 2002 letter, the data furnisher claimed that the alleged balance of this alleged account was $1800, as of March 19, 2000; and on January 30, 2002 letter, the data furnisher claimed that the alleged balance of this alleged account was $1100, as of March 19, 2000. Thus, this data furnisher has proven that they are unreliable." -- There is one thing that I can't figure out on the FCBA. it seems as though you need to be a CPA in order to calculate the civil damages under the FCBA, unlike the FCRA & FDCPA which are a lot more cut & dry as for figuring out damages. If I would have to go the route of trying to sue via the FCBA how do you figure out the damages... The rounded amounts are (basically I am just looking for an approx idea of how they get calculated.) 1800 (max amount/listed as co amount/amount claimed after i requested vd from the ca when the ca claimed that only the second amount was due.) 1100 (second amount) 1000 (current claimed amount) I know this topic alone could/should probably get a whole thread of its own.
I just wanted to clarify in the one previous post before you had posted the MFB letter, that the account in the majority of the thread, is different from the two other accounts that I had quickly mentioned... (The account which I used the updated MFB was the one which was forced to settle with the FTC though.) I wanted to make sure that was clear... Although I can prove that this company is in the least unreliable. Since its impossible that the same account can have two balances off by about 40% on the same final statement.
