How do I go about this?

There is no hard and fast easy way to remove them, since both trade lines are 'valid' as long as the OC's trade line shows a zero balance.

 

Here's something that you could try... (I use FCBA in this sample letter; if its not an open account the FCBA wouldn't apply)

Dear DADS OC...

On XX/XX/XX, your company responded to my writen dispute under the Fair Credit Billing Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, by stating that you could not find my account in your systems.

However, when I disputed the legitimacy of your company's reporting under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, you allegedly claimed that you were able to verify as being complete, accurate, and verifiable.

I would be remiss in not advising you that recent case law has changed the burden of proof that a data furnisher has in the depth of their verification of information which they are reporting as being complete, accurate, and CONCLUSIVELY VERIFIABLE, and data furnishers have been found to not be able to CONCLUSIVELY VERIFY the information if they can not find the account information, which you have admitted in your xx/xx/xx letter.

JOHNSON v. MBNA AMERICA BANK, NA 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 2244,*;357 F.3d 426

Johnson subsequently sued MBNA, claiming, inter alia, that it had violated the FCRA by failing to conduct a proper investigation of her dispute. See 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681s-2(b)(1). A jury trial was held, and, following the presentation of Johnson's case, MBNA moved for judgment as a matter of law. That motion was denied. After the close of the evidence, the jury found that MBNA had negligently failed to comply with the FCRA, and it [*4] awarded Johnson $ 90,300 in actual damages. MBNA renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law, asserting that § 1681s-2(b)(1) only required MBNA to conduct a cursory review of its records to verify the disputed information. Alternatively, MBNA argued that even if it were required to conduct a reasonable investigation of Johnson's dispute, the evidence showed that MBNA had met that obligation. The district court again denied MBNA's motion, concluding that § 1681s-2(b)(1) required MBNA to conduct a reasonable investigation and that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that MBNA had failed to do so. (Underline added.)

JOHNSON v. MBNA AMERICA BANK, NA 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 2244,*;357 F.3d 426

As explained above, MBNA was notified of the specific nature of Johnson's dispute - namely, her assertion that she was not a co-obligor on the account. Yet MBNA's agents testified that their investigation was primarily limited to (1) confirming that the name and address listed on the ACDVs were the same as the name and address contained in the CIS, n3 and (2) noting that the CIS contained a code indicating that Johnson was the sole responsible party on the account. The MBNA agents also testified that, in investigating [*10] consumer disputes generally, they do not look beyond the information contained in the CIS and never consult underlying documents such as account applications. Based on this evidence, a jury could reasonably conclude that MBNA acted unreasonably in failing to verify the accuracy of the information contained in the CIS. (Underline added.)

n3 Under MBNA's procedures, agents are only required to confirm two out of four pieces of information contained in the CIS - name, address, social security number, and date of birth - in order to verify an account holder's identity. Johnson's social security number and date of birth were not listed on the CIS summary screen. (Underline added.)

JOHNSON v. MBNA AMERICA BANK, NA 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 2244,*;357 F.3d 426

Additionally, MBNA argues that Johnson failed to establish that MBNA's allegedly inadequate investigation was the proximate cause of her damages because there were no other records MBNA could have examined that would have changed the results of its investigation. In particular, MBNA relies on testimony that, pursuant to its five-year document retention policy, the original account application was no longer in MBNA's possession. [*12] Even accepting this testimony, however, a jury could reasonably conclude that if the MBNA agents had investigated the matter further and determined that MBNA no longer had the application, they could have at least informed the credit reporting agencies that MBNA could not conclusively verify that Johnson was a co-obligor. n4 See 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681i(a)(5)(A) (West 1998) (providing that if disputed information "cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the consumer's file or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation") (amended Dec. 4, 2003). (Underline added.)

 

The middle quote may not apply if your dispute wasn't not mine...

BTW: the quotes are blockquoted and the n3 would be a second blockquote in that section.

 

With the edits to include Fair Credit Reporting Act, in that line, just take out the reference to Fair Credit Billing Act, and it'll be ready to go with a little bit of formatting.

And notice how under stated that $90,300 is in the first quote, it stands out even without being underlined.

 

Hmmmm...

This... or... Dixie's CYA Manipulation Letter...

Hmmmm... Butch would probably be the arbitor of which one he would think would be more successful for this situation...

 

btw: I did notice a spelling error writen should be written as written.

 

I have a feeling a new masterpiece is being designed as you type...