I had 2 accounts with Household Bank that were included in a CH13 2+ years ago. For the last year these accounts have been reporting on all 3 CRA's as "included in bk", 0 balance. Last month one of the accounts began reporting on EQ as 120+ days late, balance due, collection acct, etc. I disputed this. EQ verified, no change or deletion. I disputed again. EQ verified, no change or deletion. EQ, of course, referred me to Household. I sent a scathing letter to Household and demanded that they correct this mess or I would sue promptly. I received a very nice letter back from a Unit Mgr in the Office of the President. It said basically "so sorry, we will get this worked out; however, I can't offer you any info on this acct because it has been purged from our system for over a year. Fax us the report, and we will try to fix it." How can EQ VERIFY information that the OC, Household, can not even access because they have purged it from their systems? Where do I go from here with this?
EQUIFAX did the short-cut VERIFICATION...they "look" at the credit report and say..."YES I SEE IT ON YOUR CREDIT REPORT...IT IS YOURS" I guess you have to "RELY" on HOUSEHOLD to fix it... GIVE IT 30-60 DAYS, THEN "FILE"
Hi Lise, WAVING to you!!!!!!!!!! I'm really getting a bad attitude and becoming intolerant of such nitwitted acts, grrrrrrrrrrrrrr. I am impressed you got a letter from a real live person at Household, though, wowOwowwwwwww! You asked for EQ's specific procedures used to verify? I'm thinking you could easily lead them down the lawsuit path. Or, if you're tired of the nitwits, ask them how they verified, remind them of their responsibility and the associated penalties for nitwitting and attach a copy of Household's letter. Didn't you have Household removed previously, or am I remembering wrong? They didn't re-insert as well did they? Sassy
I tell you what. This has got to stop. I do not think these CRAs are even verifying stuff. I have had stuff verify and when I call the OC they have no clue how it could have been done so. I say we all go on a rash of small claims lawsuits. The CRAs will continue to abuse because they can get away with it. Most people bitch and moan but do nothing. I am not one of them. For each time they verify something we all know is not right I say we get the proof from the CA or OC and go to small claims that day. Maybe if they get a few dozen suits filed against them each day they will change their ways. I am setting up transunion and experian now. In 3 weeks it is all over for them.
Lisa, I am copying the verbage that 'mitchra' gave me in another thread. I am including this in a letter to EQ and EX. Will see if it works. ============================ In accordance with regulations imposed under the FCRA, I hereby demand that you supply me, within 15 days of your receipt of this notice, the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of anyone you contacted to verify the information reported in my credit file during your investigation for the following items: Company Acct Reason for Dispute Be advised that I do not believe the reported items are accurate, and I fully intend to use information you supply to challenge this information directly with the reporting entities. If I am unable to contact the reporting entities with the information you provide, then it will become blatantly apparant that you are either withholding pertinant information from me, or did not properly verify the information you claim was verified during your investigation. If you continue to report this inaccurate and unverifiable information I will seek whatever means available to ensure my rights are maintained including filing complaints with the FTC, my state's attorney general, and pursuing litigation. Warmest Regards, Consumer ============================ The link to the thread is http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&pgnum=1&postid=232945#post232945
Hi Sassy ~ ~ ~ ~ Waving back at ya! Yes, some of the Household accounts have been deleted. I swear, these things were like rabbits, they multiplied like crazy! The problem is that Household Finance Co and Household Bank are two separate entities. I worked out all of the issues with HFC. They were actually very good to work with and could not have been more helpful. Then again, they were in the wrong big time! They had reported FIVE account #'s. Two of them were correct, the other three bogus. They deleted all HFC tradelines for "my trouble." EQ did reinsert two of them, but one letter took care of that quickly--that was the "put my file back together right now/you reinserted these accounts you SOB's letter." Household Bank being a separate entity was not addressable through the HFC dealings. There were two accts, included in the 13, that I am trying to get rid of. One of them has been delted from EQ & EX but not TU (go figure). THe other reports on all 3. I have had the unfortunate issue that my "included in bk" accounts sometimes pop right out of that classification and go back to being reported as 120+ days late/charge off, etc. That was this case. One of the Household accounts dropped the "included in bk" designation and went to charge off. I disputed. EQ verified. I wrote the flaming letter to HH and they said "we purged that info from our system 18 months ago. You will have to fax us your CR so that we can see what is going on." At least they aren't MBNA, that situation would justify at least two hard pulls! My first question was "then how did EQ verify if you can't even pull up any info?" I like the last letter idea. That is pretty much to the point. I know they are lying. They never did one ounce of investigation on the account. The same thing applies to EX & TU. How can they verify something that has been purged? This letter (oh, and don't give them too much credit, it was a 4 line email sent 10 days after I said I would file) may be my smoking gun for deletion of these two stubborn accounts.
Yes, they are owned by the same entity. It was just not worth fighting that hard for at that time. I had a person at HFC who was happy to delete all HFC items. I didn't have a really strong case to stand on for deletion honestly. I didn't feel I could push it any harder at that time.
LoopyLisa, Yes, but they are reported with individual addresses and name tweaks on the CR's. WAVINGGGGGGGGGGG sister lisa, That's good to know, HFC is exactly who my problem is, same deal 5 tradelines for one account. I only ever had one account. It seems during that time they purged or merged or recreated themselves, LOL and picked up beneficial -- maybe that's the rationale for the account numbers. Everytime they tweaked accounting, they same tradeline was re-numbered. Sassy
Sassy, you are really in the driver's seat on your issue with HFC. Seriously, they were very, very helpful to me. They know that this happened. Like you, I was a victim of 5 or 6 accounts I can't remember exactly. Those acct #'s were all different and were all generated due to the HFC acquisition of Beneficial, a system conversion, and a policy they have of reassigning a new account number after a charge off. The person that helped me was in Virginia Beach, VA @ HFC. His name was Alfred Marsh. I am at work and don't have any of my phone #'s with me or I would give it to you. See if you can talk to him. Explain the problem, and demand deletion. Worked for me! How do you think I should approach this issue with the Household acct? I got a letter from HH yesterday that said "here are the facts, this is how we report it, anything else is the responsibility and error of the CRA. We would not/have not verified anything other than the info above." I have all 3 CRA's "verifying" bad info on at least 2 occasions (TU on about 10). HH swears this is what they would have told them if contacted for verification. Doesn't this just scream that the CRA did not investigate at all? How do I package this and get the CRA to delete?
Hmmmmm, sister Lisa, WAVING! It looks like HH purges at 1 year, yes? This is interesting and good to know! Mine are reporting on all 3, all different of course, but always verified. I have all documentation but I'll definately have to go count and date how many times it has been verified by each. I'm going to use your excel idea -- Thank you! I would be thrilled to have the CRA's in the same spot that you have them! First, I am going to do the excel spreadsheet. Ask for specific procedural verification and make sure I have documentation to back up that request. I always request it as part of my process but have never received a specific answer for a specific tradeline from any of the CRA's -- so I will send certified for the signature and date. In the meantime, I will use your HH contact information and follow up with a letter, thank you again! The above, with the documentation and letters I've already sent, should get me to the same spot as you, and I'm hoping it is the same because each of the CRA's should be begging you for mercy! They've violated, and you have proof from HH, the cardinal and most sacred of the credit reporting regulations -- the requirement that they have reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. Everytime they lose a court case, they get slammed on that in the million dollar range. All of the other specific violations (failure to notify of reinsertion, failure to certify, failure to respond to procedural request) per agency would fall into place after that, including that a violation of the FCRA in itself is deemed to be a violation as well of the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Add to that, the laws of the FINE state of Texas and the Federal Bankruptcy Code. You did everything you were supposed to do, at least twice -- they would be fools to maintain they have followed reasonable procedures with your documentation and letter from HH clearly stating they have not! I think your options are what you feel comfortable with. You certainly could do a LizardKing and file against all 3 of them at once -- you could do that now without further contact. You could write to them again asking for deletion based on their failure to follow reasonable procedures and without proof of procedures or certification of the tradeline having been provided ("they provided the information" doesn't work anymore) with your HH letter attached. Though I think it may be best if you just indicate you have a letter from HH without providing a copy of it, yet. You could send an Intent to Sue with copy of court paperwork without asking for deletion again. If my memory is serving me, LizardKing didn't file a Notice of Intent, he just filed. I think I like that, how many times do you have to ask them to do their jobs? Geeeeez. The great thing about your HH letter is that most OC's wouldn't go as far in written documentation as they have. They've been in enough trouble for their predatory lending and practices that they are under the court-ordered microscope. It's good to read of a company changing their ways and the truth is, though I had a reallyyyyyyyyyyy crappy loan with them, they were always easy to work with, they never made me feel like I was getting screwed. Most of the time, you've only a hunch that the CRA's aren't doing their job, HH however, has clearly given you, and themselves, proof that they aren't the problem. They have pulled in and defined the boundaries and set themselves apart from the CRA's -- smart for them, I think, clearly HH knows and wants to avoid the liability. If you don't want to file, would HH be willing to do a UDF for deletion that you could get a copy of? Then you'd not be taking the chance that the CRA's will update. I think too you should get any and all other derogatory tradelines that you want deleted back in dispute with each of the CRA's. That way when they start begging you for mercy, it won't only be HH's tradelines that need to be deleted. It would be all tradelines based on their practices with the HH tradelines as proof. Use the proof you have of their practices and apply it to all your derogs.They can't maintain they follow reasonable procedures on SOME tradelines but not the others. I think if I were sitting in your position, I'd get all other derog tradelines in dispute, then LizardKing them, without an Intent to Sue. I'm excited for you and I can't wait to be in the same spot. That HH letter is good for strutting Texas-style and without worry through the court room doors and give each of the CRA's a shimmey too, that's icing on your credit report cake that it is on all 3 reports. Smoking gun indeed! Sassy
You always get me thinking bigger picture, Sassy! HMMMM.... I never really considered applying the same logic to all neg tradelines, but you are right! How can they maintain that they did their job today, but not on Thursday or Tuesday or last month! I have asked repeatedly for procedures from all 3 CRA's. Is that the biggest waste of time or what? I get pages and pages of old addresses and bad phone numbers from TU. (TU - "There, that's what she must have wanted--outdated useless info. Our job is done here!) Experian has a preprinted blurb that doesn't tell me a darn thing. (EXP - "I know you requested SPECIFIC procedures and outlined them in detail, but we already have this pre-printed paragraph, on letterhead, in que to go out anytime anyone writes the word "PROCEDURES. It may not address your issue, but we think it is just vague enough to be adequate!" Equifax doesn't even respond. Nothing. (EQ....Hello, EQ! Hello! Anybody home? EQ "Huh, somebody say something? We never got it." I never told you what I sent! EQ "Okay you can tell me, but we never got it." Do you think it is worth requesting the procedures again from these goons? I think I will just for back up sake. As far as HH deleting the tradeline, they will not do that. Their info is right as bad as I hate that they can produce it!
nodding Lisa, WAVING!!!!!!! I would request them again from the goons, unless you sent the requests certified the first time. Can't hurt to show you tried and tried and TRIED to get this corrected using the consumer protection provisions -- the goons just can't read the rules and it will only make them look worse for also having not provided them if you end up in front of a judge. Sassy
