Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by Laray, Jun 10, 2001.
Barclaycard Ring™ Mastercard®
No annual fee, No balance transfer fees, No foreign transaction fees, Low interest!
CREDIT CARD WITH NO ANNUAL FEEBarclaycard Ring™ Mastercard®
Credit One Unsecured Visa®for Rebuilding Credit
Credit card for people with bad credit to rebuild credit!
BAD CREDIT CREDIT CARDCredit One Bank® Rebuild Credit
First Access VISA® Credit Card
Access to credit even with bad or limited credit! Reports to 3 major credit bureaus and accepted wherever you see the Visa® sign. Get application response in 60 seconds.
CREDIT CARD FOR BAD CREDITFirst Access VISA®
primor® Secured VisaClassic Card
Credit lines available up to $5,000! Reports to three national credit bureaus; perfect card for reestablishing credit. Guaranteed approval*!
SECURED CARD FOR REBUILDING CREDITprimor Secured Visa Classic
Credit One Bank® Unsecured Visa® with Cash Back Rewards
Get cash back on every purchase. Unsecured credit card with monthly monitoring for credit line increases. Improve your credit history with responsible use.
CASH BACK UNSECURED VISACredit One Bank
Well, believe it or not, you are asking a tough set of questons. The reason for that is that they are pretty tight lipped about what they do or do not want. I understand that if you go over to their websites, you can find some blank complaint forms they suggest you use. I wouldn't know because I wouldn't use their silly forms if they paid me to use them.
The reason is that I believe that I have yet to see any such form that was put out there for my benefit. So I see it as a sort of a trap put there for the sole purpose of leading me down some kind of primrose path or other.
I see it as being about the same tactic used by the banks who make you put your fingerprint on a check you want to cash and come up claiming it's for my protection yet!!!
For God's sakes, what kind of a damned boob do they think I am anyway???
What do they do when they verify your records? I'll tell you what they do! They do as little as humanly possible in order to save themselves the greatest amount of expense. They sure as the world don't care how accurate the results are. I'd say most of the time it's now done by sending an email or making a phone call over to Sleazebag and asking him if he's lying or not.Now then, ole Sleazebag isn't going to admit he is lying if he can help it, so he says, the report is correct and the dastardly deed is done unless Sleazebag is no longer with us or has lost his paperwork, then they might delete.
Now maybe that's not the way it's actually done, but for all practical purposes, it might as well be.
As far as I am concerned, I'm gonna tell them how the cow has to eat the cabbage, not the other way around.
I've been pretty successful so far. Yes, I've had to fight them down to a nubbin a time or two, but so far, I've always found some way to come up winners.
I may not always be able to do it, but I'm sure coming up winners so far.
For my protection??? Yeah! Right!
That's about the way I think the forms on the credit bureau websites most likely are. Put there for my convenience??
Hell no! Not by the hair on your chinney chin chin.
It's put there so I don't make any demands upon them they don't want to have to put on them or else it's put there to get as much information as they can about me that I might not want them to know.I'll use my own forms, thank you.
F.Y.I. FOR SECURITY REASONS...businesses that report to CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES usually have only ONE person that is allowed to "FIX" your account!!!
Some people have actually got ahold of that ONE person...they said that CREDIT REPORTING AGENCY NEVER contacted them about their account!!!
It is funny how 2 out of 3 CRAs can delete an account under verification, yet the third (Experian in my experiences) verify the account. When you bring this to their attention, they just give you a bunch of B.S. and tell you to look at your credit record for the contact information they used. I think they should have to get a SIGNED, faxed verification form from the creditor/CA and must send the consumer a copy upon request. There is no proof that they do crap as policies are now.
MY point exactly, happened in two cases with Experian! I just didnt understand!
Experian did it to me too. Verified, Verified, Verified!
Then what did you do, Judyputy?
Inquring minds want to know.
I found out the name of the big wig at ALLfirst and Bank of America and started sending e-mails everyday for about 2 weeks. They got sick of me really fast. They weren't flowery pontificated letters with Epplestop something something in them either. They were plain old "what the hell is your problem" e-mails.
Now I have a letter from B of A saying that they have requested that the Allfirst trade line be deleted from all three CRA's. I am still waiting, but it has only been 21 days. I will send that letter out in a few days with another dispute.
Hopefully it will get removed. They have 30 more days before the e-mails start again.
WOW! You really play dirty pool, don't you???
Seriously, whatever works. It don't have to be perfect, it just has to work.
Have a nice one.
Aren't the CRA's required by law to provide proof of verification if requested? I thought I read something like that somewhere.
I just had 3 Household accounts on TU that are reporting incorrect information as reverified. I am sure that TU didn't reverify because I have my original report before dispute with an "update" date and my new report has the old "update" date as the "verified" date. So it looks as though the lazy idiots at TU just decided to take the easy way out and plug the old date in there. Funny though, this has been my first dispute since 1999 and the "verified" dates are 9/2000 and 2/2001. Geez is TU starting to reverify accounts on their own out of the goodness of their heart without a dispute being filed? Also it only took two weeks to reverify? Letter from TU states disputes received 5/31, updated report dated 6/15. Something really stinks here.
I THINK it's proof of who they talked to, the phone number, and the date...someone confirm or correct me, please
That's the way I read the law, Nana
They have a special little trick they use to keep from having to obey the law. They (at least equifax ) use the little credit bureaus they have bought out in various towns to do the checking and then report back to Equifax.
Transunion does the same thing.
Then you have to accept that or so it seems.
So I do the dispute with the little credit bureau and it's master too, all at the same time. I think it may help to get to the bottom of the barrel of monkeys.
I would do the same..that makes sense..
Does it also make sense to go to the root or source of the problem first then demand verification by the credit bureaus?
In otherwords, what I like to do is to go after the creditor /ca and make them eat the debt one way or the other first and then once they are totally and completely out of the picture, demand investigation by the credit bureau?
Doesn't that make more sense than beating one's head against the wall with a creditor/ca continually responding to the CRA?
I don't beat my head against a wall..I do several things..so it's different than sticking with one place and not using other resources..I've had luck with all so I wouldn't want to eliminate any of them. If something, say the CRA isn't effective, then I move on..(while keeping my foot on the CRA's behind)
Let's put it another way then.
If the CA/creditor keeps on saying it's correct when the credit bureau supposedly verifies or reverifies then what would you do about it?
Yup, what would you do about it, Bill?
Hi Nana,, Hi Bill,,
I would take legal action against the CRA, I read that was Lizardking's strategy. I think it is your best strategy along with having them go thru the validation process, (CA I mean)
Again, if they have reason to know that the information on your file is not accurate and they continue to report it, they may be subject to liability. It is that simple. There is caselaw to support this and I have cited the cases before on the board. Don't give up with the CRAs, because they are the ones that can effectively remove it and they are not going to subject themselves to continuous liability just for a creditor or a CA.
One caveat: if they you have tax liens, BK, Judgments etc.......then you may a problem, but I have read others have managed to get tougher items off their file, so nothing is impossible.
In my opinion, if the item deals with a governmental entity and the courts have been involved and they continue to verify, CRA have a stronger agrument againgst you.
Anyway just my 2 cents with some change
Cyprigirl..I think that makes sense..I know that I've gone to the AG three times at this point..and the AG backed me up with an admonition..once it was the Illinois Dept. of Regulation and that CA has now been prosecuted. I notice it was removed off one report recently..expect the other 2 will follow...
Then, if that didn't work, I'd be in court!
All of the above may well be true, but what I am talking about is where you actually do owe the debt and all of the information reported by the CRA and the CA/creditor is factually correct and accurate.
In that kind of situation it's a whole different ball game.
The AG is hardly going to back you up and make them take it off in those situations and neither is a court of law.
The CRA is right in it's reports.
In that type of situation, how would you go about getting it removed without paying the claim which is going to do nothing for your report?
In that case, I'm going to attack the original creditor or the CA, probably both and get it gone and then go to the CRA and demand they verify it. Since the creditor/ca can no longer claim it's a valid debt and will have asked the CRA to remove it of their own accord, the CRA can hardly come back and claim they verified it. If they do, you have proof from the creditor/ca that they are lying and then it's time to take the CRA to court and make them pay up and get off of it.