I resently sent correspondence to a collection agency that has been paid via judgment. 1st letter states OC removed account. Therefore, CA should also remove their account information. CA responded w/paid in full letter. Subsequent contact netted another paid in full letter. Last contact netted written response basically telling me to go right ahead and sue and they will continue to report the account until 7/2004, the OC charge off date. Dilemma: On 2 credit reports, CA tradeline deleted. CA remain on Experian. Experian reporting deletion date of 2/2004 (clearly in my favor) rather than 7/2004 (OC charge off date). Yet, CA has verified info reporting correctly, even though there is a discrepancy between the date of 7/2004 indicated in their letter and the Experian report of 2/2004 which they verified. Again I have disputed this information with Experian which was verified as accurate by the CA. I know that this CA committed violation of FCRA as they are reporting and verifying information that is not 100% accurate information. Should I pursue this as the CA has not re-aged the account. Rather, they have verified a purge date 5 months ahead of schedule. As stated above, OR was removed from EXP due to purge date in 2000. Based on this technicality and inaccurate OC 2000 purge date, should CA's deletion date also reflect the OC incorrect purge date in 2000. I'm writing this on the fly, so I hope I explained my circumstance clearly. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated
I read in another thread that you could sue them for breach of contract if deletion was part of the agreement and they did not follow thru. I dunno about the purge dates. JMHO
You want to sue them for making an error in your favor? Sure, go ahead if you want it stay on there for an additional 5 months. Also. because the oc removed the listing does not mean the ca has to. Who was it that sued you, the oc or ca? I'll bet it was the ca. If I were you, I'd leave it alone. I really don't see anything there that will get you a judgment out of a lawsuit, unless there is more to the story.
LKH has a good point but the law says the information must be 100% accurate. They ARE in violation. I would go ahead and file suit in small claims and get a case number, have them served. As soon as they get that they will (almost certainly) delete just to get rid of you. Keep in mind that they may try at that point to correct the mistake/report. Stick to your guns. That is not a remedy. Tell them you'll drop the suit if they delete. They have no vested interest in losing money to defend since it's already paid. You're relying on their taking the easiest way out. Which of course they will. (thinking outloud)
Thanks for this information. In reviewing the letter and comparing the EXP report, I noticed that the CA states that they purchased the account in 9/1998. CA also states that the account was charged off in 7/1997. Further, the law suit was filed in 1997. Why would CA purchase an account months after a law suit was filed? Also, CA verified that they started collection activity in 2/1997 on the EXP report. Is there some kind of law that states an account can not be sent to a collection agency w/o first being charged off. I am seriously thinking about suing, as the CA has failed in many regards (in my opinion) to provide me with the information I requested. Further, I disputed the reported information in April, June, and July. In each instance they failed to mark the EXP report as being in dispute. Further the information they indicate in their letter is contrary to what they time and again verified as accurate reporting by EXP. Even though the dates in the EXP report are in my favor, the bottom line is they should report accurate information. Further, I can't trust the dates that they verified nor the dates in the letter. Can't get any information from the original creditor. Food for thought is CA states that they purchased the account in 9/1998. The law suit was filed in 1997. The CA is the entity that sued me. The judgment was marked in favor of the CA Assignee of OC. If they purchased it, should it not indicate that they were the owners rather than the assignee? I'm not off my rocker and would not normally touch a tradeline that is reporting in my favor. Yet, none of the dates seem accurate, particularly in regards to the CA's collection activity verified as commencing on 2/1997. Yet the OC charged off the account in 7/1997. Yet the CA stating they purchased the account in 9/1998. Yet the lawsuit was filed in 1997. The dates just don't seem legit. Again, all thoughts on this matter is appreciated.
Again, I am reviewing the letter and the CA states they purchased the account in 9/1998 and their validation letter was sent out at that time in accordance with FDCPA requirements. As stated before the lawsuit was filed in 1997 and the judgement entered on 8/1998. There is no way in four hells that a CA would validate an account after a judgment was entered. The CA is definitely providing the wrong information.
You have all the ammo you need to become an extraordinary pain in their backside. That's the leverage you need to get your deletion.
Well, you've given more info in the last few posts. Yes, apparently they've got the dates all screwed up. I am curious as to why it took at least 8 months for them to get a judgment, or is this also incorrect? I to be honest, am not a fan of suing off the cuff without having given a serious attempt at correcting it first. If this was me, I would write 1 more demand letter explaining all their errors on the dates. I don't think I would mention anything about the purge date. Tell them it is painfully obvious that they cannot report 100% correct info as mandated by the FCRA. Give them 10 days to respond to your demand that they delete the entire entry or you will be forced to file suit. Then, you've got your paper trail and can show a judge that you made every effort to get this corrected if need be.
Again, thanks for all the information. My last communication with the CA was on July 22, 2002, in which I gave them 10 days to respond. Well, the CA responded within 5 days of their receipt of my letter. An excerpt from their letter reads: "Your request for information 4 years after payment of the account is not valid and we have no obligation to provide anything at this late date other than the letter confirming that the account was paid. Although you may file complaints with any entities you choose, this is the same information that will be provided in response and our position will not change as a result of such action." The CA seems to be pretty adament that they are correct in their reporting. I too am more in favor of a tradeline removing their tradeline rather than suing. I would then go quietly my merry way. It seems the only way to get this CA's attention would be carry out my threat of legal action which I mentioned in my July letter.
Just wanted to give an update on this particular thread. In spite of the strongly worded letter from the CA and their stance on the accuracy of the information they are reporting, the CA apparently decided to remove their tradeline. The funny thing is I went on vacation for 2 weeks and immediately checked my credit report on my return. My report "looked" different, but I couldn't figure out why. I did not notice the deleted CA tradeline until today. Five days after my return from vacation! My mother would call this a case of "not seeing for looking". Thanks to all for the encouragement you have given to dispute, dispute, dispute, and dispute again!
