your public record section. I did find a reason to dispute, finally. In mine, there are 0 liabilities listed. 0. Now I certainly can understand 0 assets in some cases... but 0 liabilities??? That's either a case that's been dismissed (not discharged) or one that doesn't exist. Nobody would file w/0 liabilities. What would be the point. I'm lumping it into 2 pages of other disputes. That way, with the FCRA violations etc... hopefully I can negotiate its removal too. Anyway, just a thought. All by itself I'm guessing that the entry might come back verified... but lumped into a group it might pass through... might not even make the investigations (and the 30 days could expire)... well, you know the drill.
Thanks Marie!!! I just printed this thread out for future use. I appreciate you thinking of me. I have been interested in your lawsuit/dispute ideas ever since you brought it up a couple of months ago. Trailblazer = Marie!! Best regards - Jim
Marie, Just curious, which report of yours has the 0 liabilities? Our Experian lists the assets and liabilities. I just happened to glance over my husband's TU a moment ago while I was at work (getting ready to send a copy to BR). TU has 0 assets and 0 liabilities. I thought of this post when I saw that. You're right who would file with 0 liabilities? I am sure this info must be in the court records. Then again it says we do not have any assets either. Is this the basis of your dispute with the CRA? I would love to find out the results of you dispute.
All have 0 liabilities, 0 assets. The interesting thing is this. Have you guys ever poured over the CRAs own literature? You know, the sheets they send you... well, I forget which one it is, but one even has a "picture" of a proper credit report. It lists a bk. Guess what, assets and liabilities are in there and that's their own example of a complete credit report. Now, this is a real technicality because let's face it. Getting a bk verified is pretty easy. But, it's a reaon to dispute it in the first place. Then, if there's a bunch of other items, coupled with FCRA violations and then a lawsuit... well, it's a crapshoot whether this will work but at least it was a way for me to sandwich the bk in and try to get it off later as compensation for their violations. But be careful how you phrase it because if push comes to shove you want to be truthful. Eg: "I have never filed a bk with 0 liabilities" is completely accurate. I had liabilities. But you know they'll verify it. likely not change a thing... and I say "please correct"... not remove. see. truthful. How they interpret it is up to them. just getting them to walk down that slippery slope to lawsuit.
Marie or Jim, Are you guys disputing a Bankruptcy (fileing) while still haveing entries that were included. Or are you disputing while haveing an otherwise clean report?
Fat Jake, Marie is the knowledgeable one here. I got lucky. My BK only made it into the public record on Equifax. I haven't challenged my public record BK yet. I don't have a strategy. Marie is developing one. Junum did get rid of 3 out of 6 BK related discharged credit card accounts for me on Equifax despite the public record. Best regards - Jim
Jim, How the heck did you get so lucky to only have a BK reported on one report? It will be interesting to hear about Marie's lawsuit.
dlo64, I have no idea why my BK was only recorded in the public section on Equifax. There is nothing else to discuss here except that EQ is notorious for being difficult to dispute with. Best regards _ Jim
just getting them to walk down that slippery slope to lawsuit. Exactly right, Marie. That's also true of the whole business of getting good credit repair done. It's what the new Lex program that costs over $500 to get them to do, it's exactly what creditwrench is all about, and it's exactly what many others here in this thread have been trying to preach for a long time now. Starting with the creditors and collection agencies first and getting them on that slippery slope to a lawsuit instead of spamming the credit bureaus to death hoping for your deletions is the best way to go. On the other hand, spamming the credit bureaus does also have some advantages at times because one can get a few entries removed that way, and that's a little easier than getting the creditors/ca(s) to capitulate out of fear of getting sued for a big chunk of change. So it all boils down to knowing how to get the job done, and of course, there is no one set way of getting the job done. For some, it's better to get someone else to do it, for some who what to learn how to do it themselves, that's also a good way to go. Different strokes for different folks. It's also why I am starting to do it for others who don't want to take the time and trouble to do it themselves, and I'm sure not going to charge them any outrageous $500 to $1000 to do it for them. But no matter who does it, there are only so many ways to go because everyone has to work within the framework provided by the law. So while one may discover new ways to apply the law or make it work for them, they still all have to abide by the law. We are a nation of laws, and all must abide by the law. That includes the government, the lawyers, the corporations and companies and the individual citizens. So the thought that some company or individual can come up with some new way to deal with bad credit reports can only be true so long as the methods they use are correct and within the law. Any attempt to make others believe that they have come up with some new magical formula and that their new found expertise is worth some outrageous amount of money that would just about break the average man is nothing but a ripoff in my personal opinion. It's just about like that new cancer medicine they are supposed to have out. It is said to cure any and all forms of cancer, but the pills cost $2000 per month. That means that the rich live and the poor and the average man all die with no hope of relief in sight.
Jim, I have a BK-7 on my Equifax & TU credit reports. I filed on April 3, 1992. Hopefully it will come off in less then a year. It was deleted from my Experian over a year ago by Lexington when I was using their services. I had disputed the BK listing on my TU report (Merchants in So. FL) for the same reason as you stated in your original post, incorrect docket number. Not only did they say they verified it but they inserted more inaccurate information such as misspelled names for the attorney and BK judge. In May Junum disputed it, however, by the middle of the month Merchant's re-inserted the item stating that they received additional info from the Miami-Dade Courthouse and they provided the address & telephone number. They did not provided 5 days advance notice that they were re-inserting the item and they again printed all the inaccurate info. I am also considering a lawsuit against this TU affiliate. I assume if I serve them with papers they'll promptly delete a 9+ year old BK. It just irritates me how they continue to publish inaccurate info. Manny
Jim, What I meant to say in my previous post was Junum disputed the BK-7 and had it deleted. However, it was re-inserted 2 weeks later. Manny
Bill, That's absolutely correct but what really gets me is that they continue to report the BK containing incorrect info. Manny
Are there any other additonal reports in the file that indicate that they were or might have been part of the BK or included in the BK?
Well, seems to me like its time to do some learning then. What I'd do next is to go to the courthouse and ask the county recorder how the credit bureaus get their info to make reports about you in your credit files. If the county recorder don't know, then you need to go to the county clerk's office and lastly to the clerk of the bankruptcy court. Once you find out how the credit bureaus do it in your county, you can find out if they have requested information from the appropriate person. Of course, if your county has all the records on line as more and more of them are doing, then that may be how they are doing it. But you need to figure out how they are doing it in your area before you can proceed very well. That's how I would go about finding out. Then, once you are armed with the information you need and you have it right from the horse's mouth so to speak, then you can go from there.
Bill. According to Merchants (a TU affiliate) they are calling the automated system using my soical security number to verify the BK-7 filing. However, the info they are reporting is inaccurate. The docket number, the attorney's name, even the judge's name are all wrong. What makes me mad is if they are doing this then publish accurate info. After all if they insist on reporting it, the info should be accurate. Any further suggestions? Thanks. Manny
Thanks Manny for all the info on your posts. Interesting stuff, although I am sorry that the Junum deleted BK was reinserted. Marie is really the expert here. I have yet to challenge my public record BK on EQ. Someone here on the board long ago, said that it is helpful when deleting a BK if the address a consumer had at the time of filing and discharge is not on the credit report. I intend to get rid of that address of mine on EQ well before I take on the BK. Best wishes - Jim
Jim, I don't think any of my previous addresses are listed on my credit report since I've lived at my current address for over 7 years. I'll check it out though. Thanks. Manny
