Hi, I think this is my first post, although I have been reading this for 6 months (yes, did all the required newbie reading and studying). And, if the truth be told have been monitorying other credit type sites too (creditwrench, et al) This is all good stuff, but you guys knew that! I have been successful in getting several things changed and deleted. But I am up against a couple issues and looking for advice. I sent validation to one CA who I had a couple dunning letters from (no, I didn't catch them in the first 30 days), and they had a collection notice on my credit report. They ended up not validating, sending me a letter saying it was an error, and the following week, the OC ( a hospital with a $56 balance from unpaid insurance ) is now magically reporting for the first time on my Creport with the CA now off. Is this right? Is my course of action now to ask the hospital for validation and run them up now? I have another similar case going where I asked for validation within 30 days of a dunning ltr from a CA who was not reporting on my CR. They have yet to validate, but now that OC (long distance carrier) is reporting. Same thing, do I get this OC to validate, ie starting fresh with them? Is this a tactic used by "them", that if the CA doesn't validate or get involved anymore, it can return to the OC for posting on the credit reports? Thanks for the insight, Tamberlee
Well, sometimes it is... However, other times there are some innocous explainations for phantom trade lines showing on dispute. Say, when an account was opened, your address was different than it is now. You may have moved, decided to get your mail at a po box, etc. But something changed. Now, XYZ Co just never decided to try to report your account to the CRAs, yet... But a few months after you've updated the CRAs, XYZ Co decides to start reporting; occasionally the CRAs will suppress the trade line if it doesn't match enough, so that something that is possibly false won't show up in the first place. XYZ Co hires ABC Collections Co to collect, and you send a validation letter; ABC C Co sends a request to XYZ Co, and possibly gives XYZ Co your new address in the process. Now, when XYZ Co updates their records to show the address you provided with the dispute... VIOLA... The CRAs that may have suppressed the trade line because of a bad address now may magically appear, since the address will now match. The same thing could happen if while 'skip tracing' the CA pulls a CRA report to get valid contact information. This is just one idea of something that could cause a trade line to not appear for a while.
Awesome! So, now do I do any else (estoppel) to these CA's that punted? I am assuming that I need to have the newly reporting OC's now validate. Am I right? Doubtful that I can get the CA's to do anything there with the threats. Tambers
So, I'm thinking estoppel by silence for the CA's who have ignored these or sent them back to the OC's. And... validations to the OC's that are now reporting to my CR's? That's what I'm thinking
Just because the OC is reporting it doesn't mean that the CA is out of the picture... If the CA is only assigned, the OC has the right to report the account as their own (and so does the CA); if the CA bought the account, then the OC can report the account as their own with a ZERO BALANCE, and the CA can report the account as their own with the balance owed.
