I'm going to sue the beejee zees

Out of Citibank. I have absolutely had it! (OK actually DH is - I just told him he was)

In Nov. last year, we had to enter into a payment agreement. They continued reporting it 120 days past due DOLA 4/2002, and just a month or so ago added that nasty Consumer Credit Counseling statement to it.

I PFB'd the first part of April. and had less than a productive conversation w/Ruth Weller. Rc'd letter from her Manager short version:

"the info appearing on your EQ stating the account is current... (status says 120 days past due)

"during the payment arrangement the dates your payments are received are not reported" (DOLA 4/2002 is being reported)

"after your 4/8 payment is rc'd we will no longer inform the credit agencies that your acct is in a payment arrangement"

"respectfully decline to remove the 120+ days delinquency"

My nasty response:

April 15, 2003

Dear Mr. Boyle:

When I received your letter dated April 4, 2003, my immediate reaction was to reply and tell you absolutely how wrong you were on many points. However, given the time frame, and the other assurances you gave me in your letter, I decided to wait until after April 8, when my payment was received, and dispute with Equifax once again. Since you assured me that your companyâ??s previous errors were not characteristic, I felt that your credit reporting department would resolve my issues.

I was wrong.

I received the results back from my investigation, and Citibank did nothing they said they would do, yet continue to report inaccurate information. Quotes are from your letter dated April 4, 2003:

Paragraph 3 â??â?¦the report also reflects you account is 120 days past due, this notation advises that the account was 120 days past due and will remain on your credit profile for seven yearsâ?

The 120 day notation has absolutely nothing to do with my prior paying history. It reflects the current status of my account from the last time reported by Citibank. Iâ??m surprised that a company of your caliber does not know this. When you updated my report between April 12th and April 15th, 2003, although it was apparent you had posted the April 8th payment, your company still continues to report my account as currently 120 days past due.

Paragraph 4 â??After your April 8, 2003, payment is received, we will no longer inform the credit reporting agencies that the account is in a payment arrangementâ?¦â?

Again, sometime in the last few days, you verified that the â??Consumer Credit Counselingâ? statement, which Ms. Weller stated was the verbiage used for payment arrangements, was accurate.

Paragraph 4 â??â?¦respectfully decline your request to remove the 120+ days delinquency.

This bears repeating. I am requesting you remove the current status of 120+ days past due which is inaccurate. I never mentioned prior payment history.

Paragraph 4 â??Since you continue to dispute the information reported, we requested the credit bureaus reflect the entry as in dispute.â?

To date, this has not been done, nor has it ever been done.

Although, in November, I relied on the verbal promise of â??Markâ? (xxxx) that once I started with the payment plan, my account would report as an R1 status (currently paying as agreed), this didnâ??t happen. I guess I am from the old school and still believe in the word of a company. I then attempted to go through the proper channels.

On February 3, 2003, after disputing inaccuracies with Equifax, I received a letter from K. Aberson that Citibank would not investigate my complaints until I went to the expense of mailing you a credit report. Citibank then went on to verify my information with Equifax. To date, no one at Citibank has explained to me how this happened. They told me one thing, yet did another.

On February 26, 2003, I then had to go to the time and expense to write K. Aberson a detailed letter. Her response was dated March 17, 2003, and stated, â??We are unable to remove the inquiries from your reportâ?. Obviously, no one even bothered to read my letter.

To date, I have not received a clear answer to my questions. Your letter came close, but contained so much bad information it was shameful. Foolishly, I still believed in your word, and that has proved to be nothing more than a lie.

If Citibank does not immediately correct my credit reports, I will have no other choice but to seek relief in the courts.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.



Mr. jlynn

---------------------------
Today, I get a letter from the moron in the mail:

"Our records reflect after your April 15, 2003 statement was processed, the status of your account was returned to "closed by bank" and it is no longer in a payment arrangment. This change in account status was reported to the CRA's. Please allow 30 days for this update to appear on your credit profile

(sorry bucko, you verified the old information was correct on 4/15)

"In regard to the notation...was 120+ days delinquent. As stated in my 4/4/2003 letter, this information is being reported correctly and we respectfully decline your request to remove it from your credit profile."

(Somebody got a dictionary? They don't understand past vs. current tense of "to be" )

 

Now, if you have waded thru my saga let me ask this.

I read Knox's post and the corresponding case law via the link Butch provided about the duty of CRA's to not necessarily rely on the word of the furnisher.

Given that, I had just drafted a letter to CSC to reinvestigate this, and sent "additional info" the letter of 4/4, and my 4/15 statement showing I wasn't past due. My thinking was a set up to create a really good paper trail.

Should I send it or go straight for Chitibank's throat?