I am dealing with, at least trying to deal with Chexsystems to remove a neg bogus entry on my CS consumer report. This will be the third letter , CRRR. Would you guys mind giving me your opinion? You can check my earlier post on CS if you need more background or I can post more after I return from work tonight. Many thanks! Dear Sirs. I have been corresponding with your company since January 2004 regarding a negative entry in my Chexsystems consumer file. The disputed entry is from Bank of Ninkumpoops dated month of some year. I recently received a form letter in response to my last correspondence with Chexsystems. The impersonal form letter addresses none of my issues I have with your company and further proved your unwillingness to address important issues of consumers . Just to make this perfectly clear, please read, understand and accept the following sentance. I am formally disputing the negative entry regarding Bank of America in my Chexsystems consumer file. I made this clear in my first letter to your company. This letter was signed for and received by your Chexsystems on 1/26/04. I sent another letter, received by your company on February 28, 2004 urging you to follow the law set forth by the FCRA and allowing you a chance to cure your violation of the law without using the courts. To this letter I received your form letter as a response. This shows how utterly irresponsible your company is when it comes to important matters in consumers' lives. It also shows how little your employees know about applicable consumer law and how it applies to your business. Chexsystems is considered a Credit Reporting Agency and liable under the laws of the FCRA. Since Chexsystems does business in California, your company is also held liable under the California Civil Code, which provides consumers with even greater protection under the law than the Federal FCRA. As per the FCRA, this item should have been deleted from my consumer file within 30 days of my intial letter disputing this information. You provided no proof that this entry is valid. Nor did you obtain any information from the bank. If so, I am sure you would have presented it as proof of your negative entry. I will in good faith offer Chexsystems one more chance to cure this problem. If the disputed entry is not removed from my Chexsystems consumer file within 5 days of the tracked and confirmed receipt of this letter, I will file suit in Federal Court for violation of the FCRA and for damages incurred for being denied banking accounts for me personally and my business. I have significant damages which I will name in my suit. I am willing to forego a lawsuit if your company deletes this damaging information immediately. Very truly (not) yours, 3dayeventr
Thanks Jynn, Here it is. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57199
You never received any response to the first dispute, except for the form response to the second letter? Were you able to find the settlement that they entered into on the problem that they intentionally caused the NSF's because of prioritizing? If you were able to find that, then you would probably have the strongest case against them. Because then you can argue that they are not reporting YOUR bank account worthiness, but THEIR worthiness to OPERATE a bank... and that under CUSHMAN v. TRANS UNION CORPORATION relates to their credibility, and reliability to furnish information to CS. If you didn't receive a response to the first dispute at all, then this would be fine. What you need to remember though is that the CRA doesn't have to obtain proof from the furnisher, unfortunately. All the furnisher has to do is hit a few key strokes and say that it is reporting correctly. Is there anything in the trade lines themselves which is less than 100% accurate & complete (other than the fact that the bank itself caused the errors; and not you). I am trying to think of a way we may be able to bring Johnson v. MBNA into play as well...
Ok, got my own question answered by checking the original post a few extra times. -- Maybe a slightly different angle... This would probably be the letter that I would personally send, but you may get an idea. "Dear Sirs. On XX/XX/XXXX, I mailed a dispute for both ____ trade lines which appeared on my file with your company. That letter was signed for by your company on XX/XX/XXXX. From the response of your company on XX/XX/XXXX, it appeared as if your company may have only investigated one of these erroneous trade lines, instead of both. On XX/XX/XXXX, I mailed a dispute for the remaining ____ trade line, which it appears that your company did not investigate. That letter was signed for on XX/XX/XXXX, and responded to with a form letter on XX/XX/XXXX. Just because your company does not show a trade line showing a current outstanding debt; as your form letter of XX/XX/XXXX states, does not mean that your company does not have to investigate incorrect information, when that incorrect information is brought to your attention by the consumer, as I have done so on XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. Under the FCRA, your company was to immediately properly investigate, and delete the trade lines if they could not be conclusively verified within 30 days. I am demanding that the erroneous trade line be deleted immediately, and a complete description of the specific procedures used to investigate the XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX disputes, as well as this dispute are immediately provided, including the name & address of the specific person who supposedly verified this trade line information. If for some reason, your company did not properly investigate the XX/XX/XXXX, or XX/XX/XXXX disputes, then I am demanding an immediate deletion of the trade line which your company refused to attempt to verify in accordance with the FCRA." Note the it appeared; you don't want to tip them off on the fact that you know for a fact that the remaining trade line is not showing as being in dispute. I also added the key *BIG* word from Johnson v. MBNA, CONCLUSIVELY verified, not just verified, but that that verification must be conclusive in nature. If they then say that they verified, then you turn around and ask the seemingly innocous question; "If your company properly investigated the trade line that remains in question, why was its disputed status not properly notated as required by the FCRA, when XYZ Bank pulled my file on XX/XX/XXXX, and when your company mailed me a copy of my file on XX/XX/XXXX, along with the form letter which your company said on that date?"
WOW! Thanks! I appreciate the time you took to write that letter and like it much better than mine. I will post the results when I have them. I found a mention of the case re B of A prioritizing on a site called www.chexvictims.com I emailed the author of the post and haven't heard back from him. I have also searched for the case in various law sites and as yet haven't found it. If this next letter doesn't get results, I will do a thorough search. Thanks again! 3day
