If I have 1) a police report, 2) an FTC ID theft affadavit, and 3) furnish this to the collection agencies reporting my info to the CRA's, quoting the 'amended FCRA' that states such information must not be reported to a CRA based on my notification, then what should one do if they do not comply? Better yet, if I live in Ct., and the collection agencies reporting are based in CA., if I filed suit where would they have to go to court, here in CT. or would I be forced to go to CA. to pursue them? My strategy is to, first, send this notification and supporting documentation to the 'furnishers' of the derogatory information, and then second, ask the CRA's to block within 4 days of receipt of my info (which I will send about a week after the collection agency letters). Is this sound strategy? My understanding under the new FACT laws, the CRA's must block ID theft info within 4 days of receiving the letter?
Anyone have an idea on this? I am most interesting in the part concerning - if I due file suit against a collector, how is trial jurisdiction determined??
Let me ask the obvious question(s) here: 1) Are the "theft accounts" the only negatives on your credit reports? 2) Have you listed the known accounts in any of your filings? 3) (Truthfully)Are you hoping to sweep some other items on your credit reports? The CRAs are required to block/remove known ID theft accounts. This should be no problem. However, you must give them a reasonable time period to remove or amend. As for the CAs, you can bring a suit in your home state. They have "damaged" you in that state, hence it is a proper venue.
Thanks for your reply...the answers to your questions are, 1) yes, the negative accts on my report are all ID theft, but there are other items (i.e. a tax lien) that is also negative, and is in fact mine. The ID theft stuff is all really small, collection accounts for 100-200 bucks mostly, about ten of them. 2) not sure what you mean "have I listed any of the known accounts in filings". I really don't use credit much, and pay cash for almost everything, so I only have one or two trade lines open. I haven't filed any suits yet. 3) The only thing I want to 'sweep' are these small collection items. In one case, two different collectors are listing the same debt. My understanding is that the CRAs, under the amended FACT FCRA, have only 4 days to block this data once they receive; 1) my police report, 2) proof of my identity, and 3) an affidavit of ID theft (this part isn't even required I don't think, the police report seems key). But I noticed the language with regard to furnishers (i.e. collections agencies or credit issuers) are more strict, and once I notify them they cannot by any means report these accounts. So if they do, I'd imagine you could sue and it should be black and white if you win, so long as you supply the info requested under FACT (listed above) ?
Your best bet is to forward all this information to the CRAs, ASAP. Be sure to send Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested (CMRRR). You may want to request a "credit freeze" as well. You can go the extra mile and directly contact these indiviual acounts, so as to stop any further inconvenience of collections efforts.
Thanks BizWiz - I had a follow up question on this relating to an old post I noticed that you responded to...a while back someone asked why lenders see "a different credit report" than he/she did...you guys explained that it was a 'full' or 'investigative' report...more costly and used less by lenders, but still a report that shows items that were previously deleted in most cases. QUESTION IS: In case of my ID theft, and subsequent deletion of accounts, they cannot show up in such reports, no? I mean, even if they are investigative, full, whatever, if those accounts were never mine and a result of ID theft, I would be shocked if they are allowed to remain even in a full or investigative report - then the system is even worse than one would imagine. Is there another division/set of people I have to contact at the CRAs, after correcting my 'public' report, so those deeper embedded or 'full' reports are corrected as well?
It is difficult to answer that question, a those reports are rarely seen by the average person. All I can do is speculate that the "thefted" information is somewhere in the report, BUT noted that they were ID theft. So, I am certain that information, though there is a "full" file, would not be used against you.
