I have a CC that I settled on before I started reading these boards. I paid them but it shows Paid for less than full balance. I tried disputing with all 3 credit bureaus and they verified. What can I do to get this removed?
HI Kaz, I had the same problem with an OC for Providian bank. I sent a nutcase letter (do a search for nutcase letter). Once Providian got the letter, they sent me a letter back within a week and deleted the tradeline on all 3. I did the same thing with Humboldt bank. Same results. I hope this info was helpful and welcome to CN. UNLV34
Re: Just starting out need advice. Yes. That helps. I also have a Chase CC that was Charged Off in January 2001. Could I send the nutcase letter to them also?
Re: Just starting out need advice. Yes you can to anyone that you have a paid charge off to on your report with an OC. I have a copy of the letter I used. Send it CRRR, good luck and I hope it helps: Date: 9/27/02 Attn: Executive Offices FIRST USA BANK 6202 Presidents Court Frederick, MD 21701 Re: Credit card account number: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Dear Sir or Madam: It has come to my attention that Chevy Chase Bank/First USA Bank has in place a derogatory remark on my credit bureau files pursuant to my having paid you what you claimed that I owed you and Chevy Chase Bank/First USA Bank. When I paid you, I relied upon the belief that you would do the honorable thing and remove your nasty and derogatory comments from my credit bureau files which you not only failed to do but actually changed my listing to paid charge-off which is a far worse rating in the eyes of any potential future creditors. In doing so, you obviously failed to realize that the Doctrine of Estoppel directly applies to this type of situation and is cause and more than sufficient grounds for my pending lawsuit against you for punitive damages in whatever amount a jury might deem appropriate for your violation of the estoppel doctrine of law. Here is what the Doctrine of Estoppel is and how it applies to your violations of it. In order for the doctrine of estoppel to apply, the party of the first part (you, the collector) must make some statement or engage in some conduct upon which I have relied and acted upon which later proved to be to my detriment or prejudice. In your communications with me you told me that you would update my credit reports as soon as I had paid the debt to you. Quite naturally, I assumed and relied upon your statement to that effect to mean that you would mark the account as "paid as agreed" or even quite possibly remove it entirely. Instead, the entry on my credit reports still reflects a status of 120 days past due. Additionally, this account is reported as â??Paid Charge-Off.â? This single erroneous entry has caused me to be denied credit as the attached documents attest. It is currently preventing me from obtaining favorable terms on a mortgage. I have asked for correction, both directly and through the Credit Reporting Agencies. Each time it has merely been re-verified. I should point out, though I have no doubt you are aware, that each of these instances constitutes a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and is separately actionable. Applicable sections of the FCRA violated by Chevron include (but is not limited to) Sections 605 (c)(1), 623 (a)(1)(A), 623 (a)(1)(B), 623 (a)(2), and 623 (a)(3), with multiple documented violations of each section. I am quite confident that both you and a court of law will agree that my assumption was a perfectly reasonable assumption for an average debtor to make. And so, based on that assumption I agreed to pay the debt and in fact did so in April 1999 whereupon you actually worsened my credit bureau scores and that was most definitely to my detriment and prejudice and provided me with grounds to sue you for the full amount paid plus attorney fees, court costs and whatever additional punitive damages a jury might award. I have provably asked for your organization to correct the erroneous information in my credit reports, yet the false derogatory information still persists in my credit report on numerous occasions. Rest assured that I have kept ample records, consisting of (but not limited to) Certified Mail Return Receipts, phone logs, periodic copies of my credit reports showing the erroneous listing (the ONLY negative listing in Transunion, Equifax and Experian reports), and letters of rejection for new lines of credit that directly attribute their refusal to extend credit to the presence of a currently past due on my Transunion, Experian and Equifax credit reports. These would constitute provable damages, would they not? I do think they would, particularly in light of Nelson v Chase Manhattan. Therefore, unless you move to cure your error and completely remove your derogatory tradelines from my public records, within 15 days of your receipt of this letter and provide proof of your cooperation with my demand in the form of mailing, faxing, or e-mailing me a copy of your UDF which you transmitted to the credit bureaus demanding the removal I shall immediately move to file against you in a court of law with jury trial demanded. I am quite well aware that you have a contractual agreement with the credit bureaus which covers this problem and supposedly prevents you from compliance with my demands, but a contract which is in violation of the law is null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever and therefore cannot be enforced either by you or upon you. Your so-called contract with the credit bureaus will not protect you for your willful violation of my rights which are protected by the Doctrine of Estoppel. Your failure to cure and provide me with proof of your having cured the problem within 15 days after your provable receipt of this letter will be considered sufficient reason to refer this matter to the courts for their resolution. While you may think that I have no right of private action due to the way FCRA is worded, let me hasten to assure you that such beliefs are quite ungrounded and false. That point has been vividly illustrated by the ruling of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Nelson v Chase Manhattan, March 3, 2002 in which the court pointed out that Section 1681s-2(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act creates a cause of action for a consumer against a furnisher of erroneous credit information. But my pending suit against you will not be about FDCPA nor FCRA but about how you have damaged me after I acted in good faith in dealing with you. Thank you and I look forward to resolving this most expeditiously. Sincerely, <your name> <your addy> <city, state, zip code> cc: Gregory Sheffer, esq and Cliff Chanler, esq Federal Trade Commission California Attorney General Ohio Attorney General
Re: Just starting out need advice. I wonder if this letter would work on my Sears charge off (settled). Should I send it to Sears or RMA (the CA)? I settled in Nov. 2001
Re: Just starting out need advice. I have never paid the Chase CC off. I am making payments on it now to a CA who has never put it on my credit report. I will send the letters off today. Thanks so much for your help. The advice and letter is great. Until I found this board I thought my credit would haunt me forever. Started in May only disputing with Credit Bureaus. Much more effective working with the Creditors. Thanks again.
Re: Just starting out need advice. If I were you, I would send this to the OC (Sears) as long as the charge off is paid. If you have to deal with a CA, then send a validation letter. I think you might have better results with this letter to Sears. I did alot of reading previous post on here before I started doing some of the same things as others on CN. This is a great board and all of the advice I have received has been accurate and has worked. I was VERY APPREHENSIVE to try at first, but I finally did it last month and got both paid cc charge-off tradelines deleted (Humboldt Bank & Provident Bank). UNLV34
