How to handle?

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by bawesq33, Apr 6, 2004.

  1. bawesq33

    bawesq33 Member

    A Capital One MC account that wasn't mine recently showed up on all 3 CR as did a FNANB/MC account. I immediately sent off one of the dispute letters found on this site requesting verification from the creditors. For both letters I did not have the complete account number -- only a partial account number listed on the 3 CRs. Nor did I provide any other identifying information aside from my name and address. FNANB responded pretty quickly by sending me a very polite letter explaining that I had opened an account with them in 1993 with a person I had never even heard of and sent me copies of the statements to boot! It was clear the account did not belong to me. I also fired off a letter to the 3 CRA and Exp. immediately deleted the derogatory info, although the other two CRA are still pending.

    Cap 1 also responded immediately but with a request that I provide a full account number so they can investigate my dispute. Am I obligated to give them additional information such as my SSN or perhaps provide them with a complete account number when I don't have one? I want to shoot another letter off to Cap 1 and need to know what approach to use.
     
  2. hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

    Just curious, why are you dealing with the original creditor for an account that isnt yours?:)

    The dispute process, as illistrated in FCRA 611, is the "best" route to take in cases on potential ID Theft and or fraud.

    Sending a WELL WORDED, HIGHLY SPECIFIC dispute to the reporting agencies OUTLINING the REASON why the accounts are not yours, will require them AND the creditor to conduct a reasonable investigation into the SPECIFICS of the dispute.

    If you just say "it aint mine" THIS IS EASILY overcome by simpy looking at the name on the account.

    BUT, saying it isnt yours BECAUSE....and explain why, you are giving them more work to do.

    A great case on ID Theft / FRAUD cases is a recent one out of Mn. It is along the lines of Johnson V MBNA in relation to "reasonable investigation"

    -Graham vs
    CSC CREDIT SERVICES, INC.,
    GATEWAY, INC., and
    CITIBANK d/b/a/ HURLEY STATE BANK,
     
  3. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

    See my Signature.
     

Share This Page