Well, Hiding I moved this into a separate thread. Here is a good update... Disputed with the two remaining CRAs that this mass-fraud trade line is reporting on, and I got a response today. Two envelopes one CRA. Try to guess which one based on these paraphrased contents. #1) Thank you for your dispute, unfortunately because we have previously verified this information, we are unable to dispute this trade line again. (Which by itself is false, since the CA re-aged the account since they last 'verified' the information. -- OR should I play idiotic, and say, if you previously verified that the account was a fraud committed by unauthorized company, why is it still on my credit report. ) #2) Enclosed please find a copy of your credit report which we have placed a fraud alert. SO, the fraud wasn't enough proof to request a reinvestigation, but it was enough proof to place a fraud alert on my credit file. Is it just me, or does that combination of responses contradict themselves?
Great Guess... See, its amazing how predictable they are, I actually was working on my PI letter since I mailed the other one a week and a half ago...
I think Ex fired everyone, and I computer was left on to "reply" to all mail! lol BUT, this does set them up for a good FCRA 623 (b) case if you were interested in suing
Got another 'prize' today. T sent me a letter that they added a "Protective Statement" (aka. fraud alert) nothing else, and no copy of the credit report showing the "Protective Statement" I call to make sure that they actually are processing a dispute, so I ask the status of the dispute, we're still waiting to hear, ok... I then ask them when I will be able to see the "Protective Statement" that they placed on my credit file, and she acted as if she had never heard of the phrase before. Am I correct in reading the section of the FCRA where when they add a fraud alert, they have to provide a copy of the credit report showing the fraud alert -- and not wait until AFTER the dispute to mail the updated copy with the fraud alert then?
TL is being updated on both reports... Here is the greatest joke... Response from EX when provided with DOCUMENTATION to back up the dispute. "PLEASE CONTACT CREDIT GRANTOR IF FRAUD IS SUSPECTED" And this is with proof that the credit grantor either directly or indirectly was actively participating with the company committing the fraud.
Good questions... Actually I know there is a law suit in the future, just need to find the few hundred to get the ball rolling... Next dispute to TU going out Express CMRRR today... TU at least could claim a reasonable investigation still, they actually took more than 3 weeks to investigate... and that was just on the 1 page dispute.
I wish In PA, (at least when I asked the local magistrates office) the rate I was quoted was almost $100.00 for the basic court costs, just about $50.00 under what it costs for the extra shock value of filing in federal court... It's a sliding scale type thing... and if I keep the cost under $100, its not even within what their (sub-1,000) account is with illegal interest & fees.
Well, actually, this company is making the target $ go up higher and higher... Now they have boxed themselves into one of two b violations for reporting two different opening dates of the account, with each verification. And gee, so I had a Johnson case on it -- I made sure when I presented the 68 pages of documentation, the first part of the letter, and the first few pages of documentation for it mentioned the impossibility of having two different opening dates for the same account. So they either violated b the first verification, or they violated b the second verification, or both.
U got it Keep us updated.....Although it is often wise to settle, I like to hear how a consumer got everyting they wanted in court, AND was able to embarras the defendent collection agency / reporting agency ITS A HUGE RUSH One thing about living in Ca. It only take a ONE page "notice" to the defendent to sue. It has MAYBE room for ONE sentence of your case. It leaves the defendent GUESSING what the case is all about. Its fun to show up and present your case and have them say...."ummm I wasnt prepared for that question your honor"! LOL
Oh, I'm holding off mailing the next dispute to TU, until I receive the paper response from them, I know it was updated by PG, and EX's response came today dated last week. At least by waiting, I can play off of their response.
Re: Re: Hiding (and Butch) does your state offer a filing fee waiver ? if you income is under a certain amount the fees are waived for filing and service of processs ask your local court.
Re: Re: Hiding (and Butch) Try looking here.. PA SMALL CLAIMS BROCHURE: http://courts.phila.gov/pdf/brochures/small-claims-court.pdf Additional info: http://courts.phila.gov/municipal/civil/ http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/state/small_claims.cfm/stateCode/PA
Re: Re: Hiding (and Butch) well, the 'local' magistrate for my physical address' staff had no idea what i was referring to when i asked them about any type of weiving the fees at the same time, i asked about the rates... so today i went in and asked the 'local' magistrate for where my po box is, and they actually knew what i meant... the rate on the paper their office gave was a little bit lower too... about $66 for a $500-2000 case. it would be nice if the local magistrate would offer a similar fee schedule paper, instead of just price quoting.
Re: Re: Hiding (and Butch) Welp, TU's response was almost worthless... NEW INFORMATION BELOW... That's it, with just the updated data... Time to start typing...
