First, thank you very much to Doc for sharing his litigious nutcase letter. It is obviously quite effective. I sent it 2 weeks ago to 3 accounts. Here are the results: 1. Deletion of a paid charge-off that had verified twice each to the CRAs. After receiving the letter, it has been deleted from 2 of 3 CRAs, and possibly the third. I haven't received an updated report from TU. Fingers are crossed. 2. One fully paid creditor with lots of late pays removed a 60 day late, leaving only 30-day lates. Again, this creditor had verified promptly whenever I disputed through the CRAs. 3. The third fully paid creditor called upon receiving the letter. I told him that the letter explained it all, but goofed a bit and also revealed in the conversation that I wanted the tradelines deleted. I said that all future communication needed to be in writing. Here's what I just received: "Dear XXX: Since I was unable to communicate with you by telephone today I have decided to try to communicate with you by mail. If you are saying that you did not open this account in your name, you will need to send in a handwritten signed dispute letter (not from a computer, e-mail or typewriter) and copies of your driver's license and SS card. I need this information in order to compare with the handwriting and signatures with what we have on file. If you are just asking for proof of your debt, I have enclosed a copy of the last two statements which verify the charge off and the subsequent payment to pay the account off. If you are requesting a copy of the original application, we only release those by way of a subpoena. If you are not disputing this account we will continue to report this account to the credit bureaus as a paid/charged off account. If you have any questions, call....." He included a copy of my litigious nutcase letter, and photocopies of two statements, one showing the charge-off and one showing the subsequent payment. My signature is nowhere, nor was the letter notarized or sent CRRR. Incidentally, I had included with my letter a copy of my driver's license. Can anyone please help advise as to next steps? Two main questions: -What are next steps with creditor #2, who responded to the litigious nutcase letter with removal of the 60-day late, not the multiple 30-day lates? -How do I respond to the letter from #3? Thank you as always for the help!
Re: Litigious Nutcase Results/Advic Hi, Missy, glad it shook the trees a bit. One of my fully-paid student loan creditors responded like your #2 example -- they deleted the really bad 90-day, 120-day, and 150-day lates on several tradelines but changed them to 60-day lates. And, for that, I was most grateful, lol! In your case, 30-day lates are a whale of a lot better than 60s, so even your worst case scenario isn't awful. Anyway, I then turned around and disputed the tradelines as inaccurate with the CRAs and they were removed. You may or may not have the same luck. (I'm guessing that when the creditor manually changed some of the late pays they created a situation that played screwy with the CRA's computerized disputes, but who knows the real reason.) It doesn't hurt to try a CRA dispute now in any case. As for the #3 example where you tipped your hand, that's a toughie. I'm about to put together a Nutcase #2 letter ("Son of Nutcase"?) which will essentially take the form of a formal court Complaint and Request for Discovery. Basically, since your goal is to pester them into submission, you really need a follow-up, and maybe even a follow-up to that. The trouble with your #3 example is that the guy may be onto your true motive -- tradeline deletion. (You never want them to think that's your primary motive. Rather, you want to present yourself as the legal nutcase mystery person who needs to be swatted away before you initiate costly litigation, lol.) Anyway, give me a couple of weeks to put together Son of Nutcase when I have some time. Doc
Re: Litigious Nutcase Results/Advic Doc, thanks as always for the sound and thorough advice. I will follow it. Furthermore, I'll be waiting with bated breath for the announcement of the newest addition to the Nutcase family...although, what makes you so sure it'll be a son? Missy
Re: Litigious Nutcase Results/Advic Sugar: try this. I'd also recommend doing a search using keywords "litigious nutcase" to read more about Doc's excellent letter, strategy behind it, and consensus tactical approaches. http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...5081#post125081
Re: Litigious Nutcase Results/Advic Try this: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=125081#post125081 Doc
Re: Litigious Nutcase Results/Advic Hey Doc- What do I do if the creditor doesnt respond to my letter, regarding 1 late pay, but then ADDS another late pay on my CR? I was 60 days late 12/00, now they say 30 days 12/00 and 60 days 1/01
Re: Litigious Nutcase Results/Advic There's a new outcome. Which filthy creditor corrected their error? Doc
Re: Litigious Nutcase Results/Advic Okay, I got a response to one of my ligitious nutcase letters. It was signed from the Assistant Manager of collections. Basically, they are saying that I validated the collection when I paid Sprint PCS the money for the chargeoff. I have disputed with the CRAs as "not mine". I am also thinking that if I dispute it enough they will get sick of verifying and it will get deleted. He wants me to call him to disuss this. I have a letter from Sprint PCS corporate office saying that my account is at an I-1 rating. I was thinking about asking them to change the rating not necessarily getting about getting the deletion. What should I do? I gladly await son of nutcase letter but should I call them or just wait to send to letter out once PsychDoc writes it?
Re: Litigious Nutcase Results/Advic Doc- American Honda Finance. I will NEVER EVER EVER EVER finance with them again. Their customer service is rude and ignorant. They make FORD look like the perfect auto loan provider!
Re: Litigious Nutcase Results/Advic I'm just full of questions today..... I've determined my report is as done as it will get (minus Collectech, but theres nothing to do there now)anyway... I'm going to fix hubbys fulltime. Regarding this nutcase letter, he has 4 CA's reporting, 3 are fully paid, never settled. 2 are medical related, 1 is a Light company (already tried them, they said no way). 1 is partially paid med bill. Now should I be sending this "letter" to the CA reporting it or the original creditor? Has anyone had luck when it comes to CA accounts.
Re: Litigious Nutcase Results/Advic for me, fully paid CA accounts dropped off on first try of a simple dispute with the CRAs. It seems reasonable to me that CAs want to spend all their manpower calling people who owe rather than verifying fully paid debts. I would try disputing first.
Re: Re: Litigious Nutcase Results/Advic Dear PsyDoc, The Nutcase letter is that used for getting CA's to reomve"paid collections" from your credit report. I have three of them that say the same thing and I want to reomve them . PLease help JohnV
Re: Re: Litigious Nutcase Results/Advic Hi, Johnny... Butch is now doing a great job keeping up the Creditnet FAQ, and there you'll find links to the Nutcase rationale, letter, and a big number of testimonials, etc. The FAQ thread is linked at the top of this board. (Also note that there are now several other good methods out there for confronting these kinds of tradelines in addition to the Nutcase series.) If you read through all of that --sorry for the "homework" -- and you still have specific questions about how to proceed, there are quite a few people here (including me, if I see the message!) who stand ready to help. Doc
Re: Re: Litigious Nutcase Results/Advic Thanks Doc. Welcome Johnny. In addition to what's been said, Missy's letter is a violation. We ALL have a right to dispute a debt. For a CA to "dictate" under what circumstances a dispute could be accepted, (for example hand written only) implies that if the dispute is NOT handwritten, it wouldn't be accepted. This would confuse a "least sophisticated consumer".
Re: Re: Litigious Nutcase Results/Advic This is a very good lesson btw. The fact that Missy's CA violated is PRECISELY why we [should always] demand all communications to be in writing. .
