Just joined, not sure how this works. I opened a Chase card in 1997, the amount on it now is 2,549due to a string of bad luck and poor decisions it was charged after paying it down from $10,000 of in and purchased by Midland in (separate dates for each CA, 09, 10 and 11). That shows up as a derogatory on my credit. The Midland collection shows up as opened in two different dates on '11 by Transunion and Experian but not on Equifax. last reported December 13 on Trans and 02/2012 on experian. It shows up derogatory but in dispute (even though I haven't disputed it). In 12/2013 Midland got a judgement through a local lawyer (the court said I couldn't appear in court without representation, which I couldn't afford but also couldn't qualify for because I was living in a household which they deemed had too much income... two ss checks). All three still show up on my credit report, is there anything I can do about this multiple reporting and how should I proceed. This credit repair stuff is new to me but I am trying. I did manage to get rid of a bogus tax lien and get one pfd. My scores are 663 Trans, 644 Equifax and 649 Experian. Any ideas?
Ok. The OC can still report. The CA/JDB can still report. The judgement can report as long as it hasn't set aside. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: Please read along... I am not an attorney, I don't even play one on TV, I am not providing legal advice... I would argue that because even though you appeared, and were denied the opportunity to defend yourself pro se, you were denied legal process. EVERYONE HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES PRO SE. Depending when in 12/13 it was, you may still be in the time-frame which you can make an appeal of the judgement against you. Now, here's what I would do. I would send disputes of the dates, date opened, date closed, date of first delinquency, last payment date, date of status, to both TU & EX. This is where you play 1 against the other. If either DF verifies inconsistent information, I would dispute the tradelines again (you will probably get a "PREVIOUSLY VERIFIED" response.) This is when I typically use something that is inconsistent against them and cite Cushman v. TransUnion as the reason that they are required to reinvestigate or immediately delete the tradeline. The reason for this is simple. The more times the CRA sends the dispute to the DFs to investigate, and the DFs verify it incorrectly, you are accruing $1,000.00. So dispute 1, if the OC & Midland both report inconsistent information to the CRA, you have $2,000.00 accrued from the OC, and $2,000.00 accrued from Midland. ($1,000.00 for each tradeline on each CRA.) If you can get the CRAs to redispute 1 time, you've now doubled it to $4,000.00 and $4,000.00. If you can get the CRAs to redispute them 1 more time, you've now tripled it to $6,000.00 and $6,000.00. NOW, they owe you more than you owe them. If you can get the CRAs to redispute them 1 more time, you've now quadrupled it to $8,000.00 and $8,000.00. The best that I've gotten was being able to go 5 rounds with the CRA, which would pentruple it to $10,000.00 and $10,000.00. NOW, each of them owe you what you supposedly owe one of them. Now, you want to create an ITS documenting each and every one of the incomplete, inaccurate, and/or unverifiable verifications that the DF's done. The pleading to include can be very simple. On xx/xx/xxxx, I sent the dispute (attachment a) to CRA. On xx/xx/xxxx, CRA replied (attachment b). On xx/xx/xxxx, I redisputed the information verified to the CRA by DF (attachment c). On xx/xx/xxxx, CRA replied (attachment d). So on, so on, so forth... You'd be filing in federal court, and you can request that the fees for the filing be waived because of your financial challenges.
