Newbie Please HELP!!!

Start by reading the FAQs...

Credit Repair
http://consumers.creditnet.com/cs/cr/faq/00.html

Do-It-Yourself Repair
http://consumers.creditnet.com/cs/cr/diy/00.html

THEN start asking "pin-pointed" questions...

 

thank you for these links. I'm new too, and they are going to be very helpful once I get this all going!

Thanks!!

Tracy

 

yeah send validation letters now, and dispute what you feel is incorrect information on all 3 credit reports. Then proceed with whats left.

 

Give us some more information on your situation.

As far as the charge-offs go:

How large are these debts?
What are the DOLA's of them?
What state do you live in?
Is it the same state you signed the contract in?

As far as the collections:

Same questions.
In addition:
Is the one unpaid collection being actively collected on?

 

http://a1248.svwh.net/BoardFAQ.htm#Started

-Peace, Dave

 

Open accounts in Alabama are 3 years from DOLA. So you're still within the limitation timeframe.

Okay, 2 out of 3 charge-offs are small enough that most CA's wouldn't pursue legal action against you. This makes the validation route somewhat easier because there is less of a "fear" of being sued (if they can in fact produce adequate validation, which rarely happens). So on this two, I would suggest you start on the validation process.

As far as the paid collection account goes, just because an account is paid does not mean you have waived your right to validation of the debt. Also, in the case of having a paid collection, you have zero risk of being sued because there's nothing to sue over. So my suggestion here is start with validation as well. Hopefully they'll just want you to go away and they will simply delete the account. One way to "add" a violation against the CA is (and this goes for unpaid collection accounts as well) to wait out 5 business days after they signed for your letter (date on the green card) and then check your reports, if they did not mark the account as "consumer disputes" or something similar, print out a copy of your report showing so, and also place the account in dispute. By placing the account in dispute while you are also requesting validation, they are (legally) unable to verify this account to the CRA's, which means once the 30 day mark comes due, the CRA would need to delete the account (now this is the way it works in the perfect world, however it won't always be the case).

Finally, in regard to the fairly large c/o of $2K. Do you know what the true DOLA is? Is it still within SOL? You could proceed with validation, however you'll want to tread lightly if this debt is truly yours. You may want to start with the smallest debt and see how that goes. I say this because I don't want you to "wake the sleeping dogs" at the CA (of the $2k) debt if they are not actively collecting on you by sending a validation request and they deciding to file suit (which BTW would be considered continued collection activity, which is a violation of the FCRA and FDCPA).

 

JMO, but I have NEVER understood the rationale of beginning with a validation letter to a CA. I thought it made more sense to start with a simple dispute. See if anything falls off, eg no response due to CA incompetence, not in current system, etc. Then tackle the stuff that was verified with a validation letter.

 

I'm with solzy on this one. Dispute with the CRA's first and see what that gets you. The one's that don't fall off, send validation letters to those.

 

That's what I did. I basically disputed everything, and I'll see what comes off. 2 have already, between myself and my husband. The middle of July, I'll start the validation letters to the CA's on his reports. I disputed them, but they are less than 2 yrs old, so I know they will be verified. I figure I can try, and while I'm waiting, I'll keep researching to make sure I understand the next steps.

 

leo,

I may be the Lone Ranger in what I understood and didn't understand as I got started with the process of cleaning up our credit reports. But there was a mistake I made that I hope no one else makes and I'll throw this little tidbit out to you.

What I missed was that the whole point of requesting verification through the CRA and validation through the CA (other than to see if they would just "drop off") was to get the CA to violate the FDCPA or the FCRA so I would have some leverage to get them to remove the entry by threatening to sue them (and by following through if necessary) for the violations. The penalties for the violations would be more than they ever collected from the accounts in the first place.

I'm not saying no one ever said this. Somehow, I just didn't put it together.

The reason this proved to be problematic for us is that we sent the nutcase letter for a paid collection. The paid collection disappeared from that CRA and we thought the effort had been a success.

2 months later, the CA reported to a different CRA and in the meantime pulled an AR inquiry on the first CRA (violation). They did not validate in response to either of our nutcase letters requesting validation (2 more violations, 1 per account) etc..... You get the idea.

It appears we may actually end up having to go to court on this. And if we had it to do over again, I wish we had a more "standard" validation letter as evidence of our first contact with this CA. I'm still not sure what we're going to say if the judge asks why we specified that the validation had to be "in the form of a notarized statement from a person who had knowledge...etc". I'm hoping we can fall back on the fact that the letter requested validation and they didn't provide anything at all, but I'd prefer not to have to be thinking about this issue.

We're also struggling to come up with damages because we've been pretty darn successful in getting credit in spite of these little paid CA accounts. And I forget when I picked this up, but if we can't show damages, we don't even have standing to sue, even if they violated.

I guess all I'm saying is my biggest recommendation is be sure you know what the process is going to be from beginning to end before you start. If you can think it all the way through you won't run the risk of jumping the gun and then wishing you had done something another way later when it can't be undone.

In other words, don't do what we did.

All the best!

DemPooches

 

Be vague. "contains inaccurate information" is a good phrase to start with. The more problems that continue to exist, the more opportunities you have to continue to dispute and the more opportunities the OC or the CA has to violate and the more leverage you get when they do.

As you continue to dispute the same account with the same CRA, you will have to become more specific so you can show you have provided a new basis for the dispute each time and they can't label your dispute as "frivolous." (Or if they do try to, you have solid proof that you provided new information as the basis for each dispute.)

Hope this helps.

DemPooches

 

Not so sure if I agree with you here. If leo should go ahead and dispute that somewhat large c/o, and the CA has been dormant on its collection efforts, a dispute could (not saying it would) but could initiate a lawsuit against him. While on the other hand, going the validation route basically places a roadblock in front of the CA from sueing him. -Yes they could still file, however, he would now have violations of the FCRA and FDCPA in hand to help "tip the scales" towards settling out the account.

I see disputing as good for smaller accounts, and good for larger accounts after validation request is on its way.

 

Great strategy!

Once I got over my information collectionitis (collecting so much information that it paralyzes you into doing nothing), I did a one two combination for all collections. I disputed online and the same day sent out validation letters to CAs. I found that for getting the majority of those entries off, it worked wonders. Of course, you will run into problems, some of which I had to send out 2 validation letters to companies like Gulf State/OSI, Credit Protections, and Anderson Financial. In the end, they all caved. I still have some nagging problems like transferred student loan tradelines that say 60 days late when I was never required to make a payment but other than that, I am having a successful run.

The pros on this board won't steer you wrong. You'll do great!

 

A CA can't continue to collect a debt when you are asking for validation of the debt. That is a clear cut $1000/instance. Filing a lawsuit is trying to collect the debt. Also, many CAs totally disregard the law when you ask for validation. They will verify a dispute with the CRAs, send you a demand letter for payment, and totally disregard your request. These are all violations that can be used in a case against them if they want to play "hardball". I know I'm not an expert in this area so please someone correct me if I'm giving incorrect info.