I have had this dispute with a CA for more than 3 years they have been reporting a paid account that the OC said was paid and should be removed. They had not responded to anything before I found this board. I sent the Validation letter they didn't validate, then I sent the Intent to Sue letter and the same day they responded by fax with a deletion. One problem though I think they had reported it under a different agency name AFTER I sent them the validation letter. Someone on this board told me that this is highly illegal. Should I just go ahead and sue them or send another letter? Fletch.
It is reported as a collection account, unpaid with a due as of 2003 date!!!!! I sent them the Validation letter and the 30 days expired without validation. I then sent them the intent to sue letter and that is when they faxed me the deletion notification. I have a letter, and have had it for 3 yrs., from the OC stating that I paid them and they erroneously sent to CA. The CA has just ignored it, as has all 3 bureaus. I received a letter from CA #2 (CFC Financial) and sent them a validation letter, they responded with a printout of an account off their computers. I did not know this was the same account at first. This account was not on my Credit Report. It dawned on me when I looked at the letter again that the lady who signed it was the same lady as one who had sent a collection notice from CA #1. I pulled Credit expert yesterday while at work and noticed the new CA with a date opened date of 1/03 a reported since date of 10/98, a date of status of 10/98 and a last reported date of 1/03. When I got home I had the fax stating the first CA would delete the tradeline. I would like it handled but feel some monetary damages are due. This is a slimy trick and someone should pay. I hope this is clearer. Thanks, fletch.
Reread your post and forgot: CA #2 got the account after I sent the validation and before I sent the intent to sue.
Re: Re: Intent to Sue Response Reread your post and forgot: CA #2 got the account after I sent the validation and before I sent the intent to sue. fetch ============== NO Surprise: It's a common technique CAs use to pull their balls from the fire while one CA after another repeatedly throws the consumer into the fiery furnace. The END ************************* LB 59
opened date of 1/03 a reported since date of 10/98, fletch. ============ HOW DO YOU REPORT ON AN ACCOUNT 5 YEARS BEFORE IT EVER EXISTED ????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ????????????????????? The END ************************* LB 59
Let me see if I have this right......it's actually one collection agency using different names to make you think there is another CA involved? They delete under alias A and report under alias B?
Re: Re: Intent to Sue Response Yep, The only thing left for you to do is get good and pissed. You don't have to accept the unacceptable, and you don't have to tolerate the intolerable. Remember, you don't have to be an attorney, you only have to be RIGHT!
Re: Re: Intent to Sue Response I wish I had a buck for every time I should have been both andcouldn't qualify for either one.(LOL)
Re: Re: Intent to Sue Response Thanks for the reply. I think I will dispute as you suggest with the CRA. My thinking is they never deleted the item when I sent them the letter from the OC. Maybe they wont delete it now. That would be a violation that I could get 1,000 for right? After I dispute with the CRA if they don't remove I will again dispute with the CA#2 cc'ing CA #1 if not resolved then I will sue all 3 CRA, CA #1 and CA #2. I will endure the pain in the but and insist on cash. Sounds like a plan? Thanks, Fletch Exp:616, TU:590, Eq:587 Coveting the 700 club.
