Hi everyone, I have been reading this board for a while. Need someone's help. I am going to write a goodwill letter to ATT wireless hoping to get a Paid Charge Off deleted. How do I go about finding out who I need to send this to? Haven't come across that yet. Just Us
AT&T Wireless Group www.attws.com 7277 164th Avenue NE, Building 1 Redmond, WA 98052 Tel: 800-888-7600 Fax: 425-580-8505 John D. Zeglis, CEO Joseph McCabe, Jr., CFO
Thank you soo much! I am excited about get by credit repairs underway. Have found soo much helpful information here. Everyone here is wonderful. Only one more questions about this, how do I go about find the contact information or who's attention to put it to for others I may need to send.
Hi Just Us, I had the same problem with Humboldt Bank and Providian National Bank with a paid charge off on all 3 reports. I sent them a nutcase letter (I search the CN thread for paid charge off) and used the letter last month. They both sent replies stating they are deleted the tradelines from all 3 CR!!! If the Goodwill letter does not work, here is the nutcase letter I used .... 8/06/02 <CREDITOR> <Address> <City, State, Zip Code> Re: Account Number : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dear Sir or Madam: It has come to my attention that < CREDITOR > 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 < CREDITOR >. 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 "Paid Charge-Off." 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 2000 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 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 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> cc: Gregory Sheffer, esq and Cliff Chanler, esq Federal Trade Commission California Attorney General Ohio Attorney General I hope this helps ... UNLV34
