Is this a common CA tactic? Help!

CAs have been known to change the account number to get an account back on. In theory, if the CRA investigated and found that the account was not yours, the CA would also have to be aware of that, since presumably they were contacted to confirm that the account was not yours. They might also have not responded, resulting in the TL removal.

Since this account is not yours, and it appears to be continuing to cause you damage, even with the ongoing expenses of getting it removed, you may need to raise the ante. You could go to the OC and get written confirmation that they have no account in your name. After you have received this, also have them send it to the CRA. Then ITS the next CA that places it back on. Enough BS.

 

You might want to straighten out the matter with the CA who is reporting to the CRA. If you are in a hurry, you might call them and explain that it is not yours. However, the better approach would be to write them CRRR and let them know that and that you demand immediate deletion. If they continue to post it to the CRAs, then that's a violation.

Likely, the CA just took a shot and has falsely applied someone elses debt to you. If you can convince them (something that sometimes works...it did for me on 2 misapplied collection accounts), it speeds up the process.

 

1. The burden of proof is on the CA, not you.
2. The CA is aware of your allegation of Identity Theft. The CRA SHOULD be aware of it.
3. The CA should have given you a Fraud Affidavit to sign and have notarized.
4. While you are grossly inconvenienced in an Identity Theft, the law places the Creditors as the victim, not you, since they, not you, are out the money. Let THEM file a Police Report.
5. The CA knowingly and deliberately placed on YOUR CRA file a trade line it KNEW was false, because you had already disputed it and had it removed as erroneous. They merely changed the account number and re-placed it. This is a violation of FCRA and the CA should recieve an ITS letter immediately CMRRR. Demand $1000 statutory damages and if they don't pay it, sue.
6. The CRA already deleted that trade line. By re-placing it without notifying you in writing within 5 days the CRA violated FCRA. Send the CRA and ITS letter also. Prepare to Sue. The same creditor with all the same information with just a couple of digits changed in an account number is NOT a new trade line. It is the same one that the CRA had already deleted.

 

Have you checked to see the legalities of the CA.....it would be wonderful to find out they hadn't complied with the state requirements and could be easily dealt with...

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=396311#post396311

 

You might also ask for complete copies of all documentation they have to assist you in filing a police report, since they have the "evidence", not you. As far as the other hoops they want you to jump through, they appear to be trying to drive up your costs hoping you will pay to get rid of the nuisance.

File a police report, send an affidavit of fraud, and if they don't remove the tradeline, or they sell it to another CA who repeats the game, you may need to sue both CAs. If they fail to cooperate with your local police, or provide you with all their documentation, it will be clearer to the court what they are doing if you have to sue.

 

BTW, yes you're right, the burden of proof is on the CA. However they do have every right to ask you to "verify" your identity.

A delicate balance of mutual cooperation is the answer.

This is not a black and white area, but various shades of gray.

Good luck. Let us know what happens.



.

 

You might check with the FTC site, since they are the lead Federal agency dealing with identity theft, but I think Federal law requires local police to process identity theft reports. You can also file with FTC.

Also, although you may have been in another place when the original theft occurred, you are whereever you are when you found out about it, which should give your local police jurisdiction to accept your report. Identity theft doesn't just occur at the location of whoever the criminal is, or where the merchant is, it occurs where you are when it affects you.

Request that your local police request the CA's information, since if the thief used your identity once, they might use it again.

 

The problem is until he receives documentation from the CA; he doesn't have documentation to say that there is in fact a case of identity theft.

Who knows, maybe someone at Sprint PCS, typed the wrong SSN off by a digit here or there when they typed up the account information.

If the police in your jurisdiction are anything like the police around here, unless you have the physical application showing WHO tried to steal your identity, nothing will be processed.

So, I would send a validation letter to the CA stating that IN ORDER for me to obtain the police report you are requesting that I obtain; YOU MUST provide the documentation requested in this validation of debts request; so that I have the physical evidence that my local police department will require to begin an investigation. They will not accept, an unsubstantiated claim from your company that someone attempted to utilize my identity to open this account, they require physical evidence to begin their criminal investigation.

I had someone attempt to purchase a computer in the mid-1990s using my debit card number; and until the company was able to provide all of the documentation that they had received, nothing could be done to get the investigation started. There probably has been some progress in trying to cut down the pre-investigation red-tape, but each department probably has their own requirements before they'll begin an investigation, but they will probably tell you that the more documentation that you provide from the beginning, the more likely they will be able to resolve the matter.

 

Re: Re: Is this a common CA tactic? Help!

They are causing the trouble, not you. You are trying to correct what they are doing.

"to be processed" by them. The affidavit alone should be sufficient - it i a sworn statement under penalties of perjury. You should not have to provide anything else. they are asking you for more than the police would.

Let them file the police report (years after the fact). You are not the victim of the identity theft - their client is. You are the victim of their client. I would advise them that if they don't stop making you a victim of thenm and ther client, you will make them and their client DEFENDANTS.

 

Re: Re: Re: Is this a common CA tactic? Help!

You will find after doing credit repair for a while that the CRA's will disavow any responsibility for the accuracy of their files, saying "we just tell the world what we are told" and the CA's will try to outlast your perseverence by trying to shift the burden of proof to you - that you are guilty until you prove your innocence to the satisfaction of a party who has a vested interest in assuming your guilt.

I don't see any purpose to a Validation Letter - they have both already violated the law.

 

Re: Re: Re: Is this a common CA tactic? Help!

But come back and update here.

Prevents everyone from bouncing around.



.