hey just a question.. in relation to creditors that I was speaking about how do you look at 15 U.S.C 1666a) the truth in lending act under the fair credit billing act?
TO be honest..Ive never read it. It is mu understanding that it applies to open ended accounts like credit cards. BUT thats just what Ive been told. If this is what you attorney is filing under, then I really have NO IDEA about it and any comments I made where not appropriate if it was a billing issue. It was my understanding this was a "dispute" issues over something listed on your credit report, and your attorney was fiiling for the creditor or furnisher not responding to a dispute sent directly to them instead of the reporting agency. Were you able to get that letter scanned??
lol butch gosh had a brain freeze... ok under the FCBA do you think a creditor can continue to report an acct they have no proof for? in a NUTSHELL an acct that was disputed with the CRA came back remains/ updated bal to be higher. sent the furnisher a cc company a letter requesting documentation that proves the acct in question that was just verified with the CRA as accurate. CC company/furnisher comes back with a letter stating no proof just our belief the acct was applied for and opened over the phone, ok no proof of charges, no signature, no payments no nothing just states we have your ss# and address.f the acct is not verifable and is not accurate what recourse does a consumer have under the FCBA what are the furnishers requirements then? I understand the FCRA on this but I think there are additional responsibilities under this code as well?
WHAT!?!?!? Surely you are kidding me. The letter actualy says; "no proof just our belief the acct was applied for and opened over the phone," Holy Crap. I'd say go find a lawyer asap. You may have a nice case here. Other than that, the FCBA would apply only for a limited time after you received your last statement, which sounds like a while ago, yes? Your argument then, is an FCRA argument. Is it MBNA? /
Re: Re: hiding90 why would you not think it was fraud? whether its an individual who gets ahold of your personal info and commits identity theft, or a company (like MBNA) that gets your personal info thru a CRA and 'creates' a bogus account...to me, either way, that's fraud.
Re: Re: hiding90 failed to mention earlier I have a common name and that the creditor is pursing me and claiming my ss# as they obtained it from prescreened offer, however they have no charges no signature, no nothing so why would I assume fraud in this case?
Re: Re: hiding90 butch remeber this case, I just got a letter today saying that they refuse to delete this acct, i do have an Attorney working on this case he is going to now include all 3 CRA because they are ignoring the requests to delete it. im hoping this case brings in $ i have always just settled with deletion and was content but this creditor was a real piece of work.
Re: Re: hiding90 So, are they claiming this account was opened by your call to them, or by a call to you by their telemarketing firm? Telemarketers couldn't possibly have any incentive to fabricate a sale.
Re: Re: hiding90 the creditor claims that in 1996 I alledgely signed an app for an acct and this so called acct was c/o in 1997 they have no signature or copy of any contract to prove this. then in 2000 the creditor claims that an offer was sent to me in the mail to transfer the old bal to a new acct and I alledegly called them and applied for this acct. 1. this acct never existed 2. the offer to transfer the bal was past the SOL in my state 3.there is no proof of charges, credits , statements nothing to prove the acct or balance they are reporting just their belief that the phone app contained my personal info. but in their response to the FEd reserve they claim they obtained my personal info from a solistation from the CRA. hmmm sounds like fraud to me. anyhow. the acct doesnt exists and they are being forced to delete and they are being sued in fed court along with all 3 CRA.
Re: Re: hiding90 further more some of the info this creditor claims such as former add & tel # are way off leads me believe they have the wrong party and thought that they would try to make a quick buck anyway as long as they collect $ they dont care who it is from. some nerve
