Idea's for a letter....(BK related)

I'm trying to help out a friend with this same problem.. Anyone?

 

I've taken the same position as you, in a nutshell, and my opinion only.

Reporting itself has been deemed a collection activity.

If the debts were discharged in BK, especially C13 where there was repayment, there is no debt, that's the whole point of BK.

I understand the reporting of the BK accurately, if that's possible, LOL, under the judgement section.

Reporting the judgement itself and the individual accounts flies in the face of the BK laws and showing a balance with a notation is even worse AND it isn't accurate.

Though the accounts aren't supposed to be non-rated and not effect your score, that's not how it works in reality.

I owe Bob 20 bucks.

I file for bankruptcy and the debt is discharged by order of the Court.

I no longer owe Bob 20 bucks.

Bob's reporting because he still wants to collect 20 bucks, he doesn't like bankruptcy and is pissed off.

The only point of Bob reporting is to collect something.

There's nothing to report, it's been discharged.

Sorry Bob.

Sassy

 

I know something about this subject (for a change)!

My hubby and I filed a CH13 almost 2 years ago. All of our negative items say "included in bk." It has taken tons of work to get them to report a zero balance however. I called my bk attorney and ran this by him. He said that in a CH13 (which indicates repayment) the creditors are considered PAID IN FULL. Now, granted, they didn't get what they wanted, but they did get their cut. At the end of the repayment, they have to write off any remaining balance and go on with their lives. Case closed.

Now, what about those creditors that never agreed to participate in the plan? They held firm. They refused to take 50 cents on the dollar. Of all of the creditors included in our CH13, less than half of them particpated in the repayment plan. The rest just blew it off and didn't respond to the trustee's call for debts. At that point, they are out of luck. No more reporting. No more whining. No more calls or attempts to collect. It is over. They had their opportunity to be paid through the court approved plan, they chose to ignore their money because it wasn't on their terms. They lose all entitlement to the debt forever. If they continue to report it at all, they are in violation of the bk stay. It they report a balance, it is in essence an attempt to collect. Remember, we tried to pay them through the plan and they refused it. Balances are also against the stay as well as an attempt to collect. These guys should be easy targets. No matter what a CRA says, this logic makes sense to me. Snooze you lose!

I have had marginal success (probably about 40% of the time) getting items deleted with this logic. I don't think it is because the creditor agrees with me so much as there is no box for the rep to check on the dispute. This dispute doesn't fit a predetermined category. It is a hassle to deal with. So, I think the deletions primarily happen because of the CRA's inability to dispute it within their canned framework or else the rep's just don't want to deal with it and they delete.

Lisa

 

Well you don't have the issue of the no shows. That makes it pretty clear cut.

If you still have balances reporting, and they are not showing as in BK, you have a violation of the stay. If they are reporting a balance, but are showing as "included in bk" there isn't a whole lot you can do from my experience.

Here is what I found:

TU - will delete the balances of "included in bk" accounts without dispute. They just go in and zero them out.

EQF - the nature of their reporting does not allow for balances if the account is shown as "included in bk". It only reports date opened/closed.

EXP - This is the hard one. I haven't been able to get the balances deleted from Experian. They say it is not their policy to delete it. Period. I have had to fight them invidually through the creditors.

Hope if helps. Keep your chin up. You will see progress. Just keep after them!

Lisa

 

What about going directly to the account that is incorrectly reporting the balance as still owed? Can't it be pointed out that they are violating the court order by reporting false information? If it was "included in bankruptcy", then that should be then end of the story and the amount owed is zeroed out. They shouldn't be allowed to make up stuff to stick it to you after the fact. Right?

 

Oops! Sorry LisaMc, I guess you just basically said that in your last post! It's Friday..

 

Well, I can tell you what they told me...

The creditor feels they have every right to report a balance as of the date you filed your bk. They can't report a current balance, that would be against the stay. Their theory is that they will report this balance as of 1/01 or whatever date you filed. Then they don't re-report. It still figures in your score and is damaging. It is not a current balance however. So, with time, its effects are diminished.

I have found that if you dispute the balance enough, they will usually zero it out. I have had luck with this logic....Is the balance higher than it was at your filing date? If so, and all of mine were, they continued to accrue fees and interest after the discharge. They can't do that. That might be an edge to go after them with.

 

I sent the CA's all validation letters, all OC's I sent a modified validation letter based on the FCRA requirements of information furnishers and requirements for reporting.

Not a one has reported anything as being disputed on my reports, after the first letter everyone has a violation to reference, worth more to me than whatever they think I owed them at one time.

Those that provided me with anything back, 3 out of 20 or so, all just a computer printout statement so far, I sent a partial validation letter to, specific to the account, in general stating they were reporting in violation of the stay and discharge provided under BK laws; FDCPA for validation requirements, and FCRA for inaccurate, incomplete, erroneous and outdated information -- requested complete validation of every detail being reported and an itemized account payment history including a listing of payments received from the Trustee of the Court.

Asked for proof of their ability to do business in Arizona, their physical location so I could review their records and anything and everything else detailed and specific that I could think of under AZ law especially because we're allowed to request any relevant information at any time. I combined all letters I could use for reference added some she's a loon babble from the nutcase letters and prayed!

Everyone has something wrong -- dates, balances, status, something and after the first validation letter with at least one violation hanging, that's what I focused on.

I don't owe any of these people any money, no risk of collection or judgement, no new debt to pop out of the woodwork, and not much to risk in being a pain in the butt. Not a one of them so far keep records they are willing to dig up to verify.

I'm not sure if my deletions to date have been because they can't provide the requested records or because they think I'm a raving loon with too much time of my hands.

Works for me, I AM a raving loon and find the time to put them and their records under the microscope -- bring it on!!!!!!!!! Prove it or remove it, that's my right and I'm taking it.

Sassy

 

Great information ladies! Donna, I wish you luck with your project, and I'll try and keep you posted if I have any luck with mine.

 

Sassy, you and I lead paralell lives!

I am about halfway through the process you described--1 CA the rest OC--validation letter to CA, modified validation letter to OC. I haven't heard one word from any of them. It has been 3 1/2 weeks so far--nothing, zip.

This was my plan. Tell me if you disagree or see ways to improve (this also assumes that none of them will respond. At this late date, it seems unlikely I will get anything from them):

1. Wait until the 30 days are up on the validation letters.
2. Send second request giving another 60 days.
3. Possibly send third request giving another 15-30 days.
4. I have already disputed the items through each bureau. I have requested procedures, received nothing from any of them.
5. My plan is, armed with the info above, to file suit based on the Lizardking idea. They evidently didn't investigate the info because the creditor couldn't supply it when I asked, how could they supply it when they asked? Then of course the FCRA violations for not responding to my requests, etc.

Am I on the right track here for deletion?

Lisa

 

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, Lisa, I've been doing requiring a lot of care grandma duty this weekend so I got behind.

I'm nodding and grinning, it kinda makes me feel better in a twisted sort of way that I've a twin living a parallel out there ;-).

I've only disputed once with the CRA's, so that's where we differ, my thinking was to get as many removed as I could with initial disputes -- anything that was verified, that's where I picked up with the en masse validations.

You should be able to copy all letters and back ups and submit to the CRA's again and they're supposed to re-investigate based on anything new you provide -- doesn't seem like that realistically happens most of the time.

By then you'll have an arm's length of violations anyway and definately have ammunition for a suit against the CA's and CRA's if you want to do both.

The position of being right, having thousands in violations, versus reporting an account discharged in C13 seems like a no-brainer to me, you'll get them deleted.

When you said a second validation letter and referenced 60 days, you meant 60 days total yes? from the first violation through the second? It read like you were going to give them 30 days with #1 and 60 with number 2.

They don't deserve the time that we give them now, 'cept we're nice and doing the right thing. I still believe that will help, in a court room and for looking at yourself in the mirror if nothing else. You've tried to do the right thing, and tried again and again to get the right information. They don't want to provide it.

Really I believe if they had the information and were willing to provide it, we'd be receiving it with the first validation letter. After the initial validation letter, follow up isn't really for the creditor as much as it is to show you've tried everything and then some -- and truly by then you have.

We're thinking the same though, I've really given the CA's too much credit, thinking surely they aren't this dumb, most of the time though, they really are that dumb; I still find it shocking.

Do you think there's a lizardking hall of fame we can aim for? LOL. If I'm remembering right from one of his posts he's driving a fancy brand spanking new uptown vehicle, I can't imagine the day, but I'm hoping for it and for you too!

Sassy

 

Sassy, I laugh every time I read one of your posts.

Like you, I think the CA's and CRA's would give us the info if they had it. I really, really doubt that they do. I think they coast along until someone rocks their boat. When and if that happens, they delete rather than fight the battle. That is what I am hoping for anyway.

I have never sued anyone, ever. I guess there is a first time for everything.

Yes, to clarify, it was 60 days from the initial letter. Thirty days for the first. Thirty days for the second. I am really growing tired of this. i doubt I have the patience for round 3 (in essense giving them 90 days to ignore me).

Thanks as always for your input.

I hope your Grandma is okay. Once again, we are twins! My grandparents are 94 & 87. Last weekend my family helped to move them out of their home where they had lived for almost 60 years! It has been so, so hard for them, but their medical needs require it. I feel for you. It is very hard to watch someone you love hurt.

Lisa