My husband and I had to refinance last year due to his unemployment, mounting bills, etc. and at the time our FICO scores were in the mid 600's. We could only get an 8% interest rate w/pre-payment penalty. In Feb. 2004, we can refi, but I need to clean up our credit. I have 1 negative -- a settled MBNA account which is an R5. The worst my husband has is a 90-day Saks Fifth Avenue which was paid in full. Then he has about 7 30-day lates and 2 60-day lates. Ive gone to the CRAs but once a company verifies they won't let you challenge it again. Is that a new rule? What's the best way to attack this? Is the nutcase ltr the way to go w/Saks? Planet Feedback? Thanks for your help...Susanna
Actually there are quite a number of ways to handle these, but personally I've settled on the tactic which I believe works best, although it does take a little longer. ( About 2 months) I'll briefly explain the process so you can go research it. I've written a lot about it already. First, we need to remember that we cannot sue a DF, (Data Furnisher) until we dispute through the CRA's. This tactic is useless unless this component is included in this trick. Since you've done that you're now in a position to sue the DF if necessary. So, when an account is paid that means it's closed and the DF no longer has any reason to view your CR. First, write to them (CRRR of course) and tell them that you're dismayed that the info they are reporting to the CRA's is grossly inaccurate - BUT DO NOT TELL THEM WHY IT'S INACCURATE. Play DUMB as a box of rocks here. Don't quote law and don't tell them how savvy you are. They are a LOT more likely to violate if they think you don't know any better. Remember we're just stupid, deadbeat consumers. Keep it that way. Their curiosity will drive them crazy enough to pull your report to see what the heck you're talking about. "What does she mean reporting the wrong info. We NEVER report the wrong info"! lol § 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681n] (a) In general. Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ... (B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater. Notice it says WHICHEVER IS GREATER. There's a straight statutory fine of $1,000 for a No PP pull of your CR. no if's and's or but's about it. Now, file a small claims case for $1,000. Wait until they are served and then send an offer that you will consider dropping the suit AFTER the deletion. Not only will they [almost certainly] delete but they will do so BEFORE your court date. Works almost every time. Naturally there are easier ways but I believe this is the most powerful. Only you can decide which tactic will work best because only YOU know your adversary. See? [ Sassy Compliance ] BTW - Study every word of the FCRA. I have, AT LEAST 100 times. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#616
fave Butch growling dude, What is sassy compliance in troll brackets even??? ;-) It is much bigger than hoping they'll pull a report, Butch. Once disputed, request verification of the information NOW AS PRESENTLY REPORTED (based on the just verified TL) reported -- not new information or old or as it should be, based on THE verification that just occurred. I disputed on xx/xx/xx, the results of that investigation were that the TL was verified by CRA whoever. The information is not accurate or complete and I request verification in the form of evidentiary documentation from you (OC) to back up your bogus reporting or delete the information because you didn't do what was required of you under section 623 and for which I can hold you responsible. They won't have it because it is wrong. You don't want the right information, they JUST verified, so you want the information to confirm THAT verification. So, either they confirm that the dispute verified with the CRA's was bogus and either accept responsbility and delete or they blame the CRA's and give you a good reason to use Dixie's letter. SOMEONE did not verify, the furnisher or the CRA, fess up or you'll both be held accountable. If you dispute again, based on a non-response (which is most likely) and it is yet verified again, you've a pretty lawsuit. Whether they pull a report or not is just frosting. Sassy
LOL, nevermind, I just figured it out, the "almost certainly" -- thank you for that Still the pulling of a report shouldn't be the focus, though it's a nice perk! Sassy
