I need help they are preventing me from getting a mortgage. Account closed in 2002 discharged in chapter 7 bk 2003, is showing currenty 120 days past due as of 2/2004, It is killing my score without that I would qualify. I disputed with tu and it comes back verified, I pfb'd capital one and called them. All they say is we will get back to you but never do. Any sugestions I need to try and get this corrected rather quickly if possible. thanks.
I know others will say this is a no no but ( depending on what you credit report shows ) sent the cras a coppy of the bk papers . I had to do this to get a charge off my experian report .
Understand this will cement the BK to your reports for the full term. Doing this will make it virtually impossible to get the an early removal of the BK from your reports. ><- <>- ><- <> ~
You are being too nice. They verified with TU???????? DO you have a fax number for them? If not I would invest in a little Fed Ex right now... I would send them a nasty ITS letter letting them know that they are inaccurately reporting a TL as 120 days past due, in violation of BK laws, and in violation of FCRA laws. I would let them know that you are applying for a "large purchase" and if you get declined because of their inaccurate reporting, or you are offered less than ideal terms, you will immediately file suit for damages. Name names. I talked to so and so on this date, and so and so on this date, and I have not heard back from them. Get mean and nasty!
Thats what I was thinking I have a letter ready to go,I will fire it off today. Talking sure isnt getting it done.
well got a call today from capital one, and was told they just verified it as being in iibk and should not be listed as 120 days past due and she doesnt know why tu is reporting it that way. She said there is nothing she could do though because tu is the one not reporting it right. needless to say im in special handling at tu and noone will talk with me or return my call
To answer your original concern about getting a mortgage, it's really not an issue. I have had two cards that I get "right" (IIB) and then they revert to late by themselves. I was VERY upset when this happened just as I went into the mtg app process, but I was told it was nothing to worry about. Because I had to present my BK filing, the accounts were listed there. They call it a "manual over ride", but esentially, they know that CRs are never accurate and if you can supply the correct data on paper, they accept that. As far as your score goes, I never saw a difference between IIB and 90+ days late. The joke is that one account was all of one month old when I went BK, so the concept of being 3 months late is hilarious. Get something in writing from Cap1. My account w/them never changed, only my Citi accounts.
if you would have had to go the FedEx route, I would also print out a nice copy of Johnson v. MBNA where MBNA is out $90,300.00 for the same type of incorrect verification.
The pass the buck defense is not a valid defense. C1 & TU are jointly liable for how the trade line is being reported. I would tell C1 that they have an obligation to ensure that TU gets it right, and KEEPS IT RIGHT, and if not, then it is in their best interest to DELETE the trade line to save themselves from the liability caused by TU's inability to get it right. - $90,300.00 is a nice number from Johnson v. MBNA; and those circumstances would be similar as far as being denied a mortgage based on the inaccurate reporting on the C1 trade line. This is a prime example of why cases like Johnson v. MBNA are needed to be filed against all three CRAs as well. Because the creditor always trys to pass the buck to the CRAs as being the one who is in fact violating. The same if you sue the CRA for something that they are reporting; they will always try to pass the buck to the DF as being the one who is in fact violating. I would demand that C1 provide to you a UDF for the account which is 100% COMPLETE & ACCURATE. Then you can fax or mail the UDF to TU, and if it is verified incorrectly from the UDF, then you know that TU is to blame because you are in possession of the UDF which C1 gave to you, and that you gave to TU. Note the 100% complete & accurate; for it to be 100% complete the UDF would have to contain all the information, which C1 never usually reports, credit limit, etc...
This is a prime example of why cases like Johnson v. MBNA are needed to be filed against all three CRAs as well. Because the creditor always trys to pass the buck to the CRAs as being the one who is in fact violating. The same if you sue the CRA for something that they are reporting; they will always try to pass the buck to the DF as being the one who is in fact violating. jam237 ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> In a way they are both at fault in this situation.
