Yep, that's the game they play. We even had a fully paid one report to TU for the first time almost 2 years after they were paid! (This was over a month after they deleted from EQ) And yes, the lawsuit is filed. DemPooches
I guess that sounds like "reinsertion". Let's say you pull a report from CRB#1, ask for deletion and it goes away. Now for the first time ever, you pull reports from CRB#2 and CRB#3 three months later and find the same item that was originally deleted from CRB#1, reinserted with new dates after the original deletion, in the reports of CRB#2 and CRB#3 that you get. CRB #2 and CRB#3 would never have contacted you originally when they inserted those new entries in your report - am I correct? So how would the 5 Day rule for reinsertion apply in this case and how would you contest it with these new CRB's? Can you?
I believe you are correct, that in our case, technically there was not a reinsertion, so there is no 5 day notify rule. We're suing them for false representation of the legal status of the debt and communication of information they knew to be false, among other counts. By the way, the first thing we tried was a simple dispute with TU after it showed up there, but the CA verified. (Deleting all of the dollar amounts in the process.) So now we have two collection accounts with zero most owed, zero past due, zero balance. It's an interesting mess. DemPooches
Sounds like you have an interesting case indeed! However, if the two collection accounts have been essentially "zeroed out", why would the CRB (TU I guess in this case), just not realize that "zero=zero" - nothing to report? It's so interesting, in reading so many posts to learn about repairing one's credit, the one thing that stands out as far as CRB's is that TU is the most "difficult" to deal with. It must be, because so many have horror stories to tell. Of interesting note, a few weeks ago, I ran into another board's web site that someone here happened to mention and in one of the threads, someone made mention of TU as being "difficult" - I know I am putting it so gingerly! Anyway he went on to mention, that the original TU (I forget the company, as it TRW) was bought out by TU and TU happens to be a British owned company - a major Eurpean comglomerate). By taking the corporate headquarters out of the US, it allowed them to create a certain sense of "legal immunity". By that he meant that they are not as concerned as other CRB's about being sued. It appears that within that "shield of law", transparent to most, they can do pretty much what they want, hence why they don't succumb as easily as others when told that they are going to be sued. I wish I had kept that thread to post here for you to read DemPooches, I beleive he was an attorney by trade.
