Next step to remove paid collec Butch, Don't criticize someone for restarting a thread from a year ago ... I found this very helpful reading through a long ago thread ... Seems like damned if you do and damned if you don't. If someone posts a new thread and asks for help, they are told to go and do a "search" which is just basically going and pulling up old threads anyhow, and you know that someone will most likely re-post that thread or quote from it and ask a question - so in theory they are bumping an old thread anyhow. Or, someone tells a newbie to follow this link, and that link, and this one .... which are all old threads ... This latest poster took initiative and searched through and found an old thread that applied to their situation, then asked a follow-up question. This brought the thread to the top, other relatively newcomers as myself, get to read the original thread that has lot's of good info, plus we get to see how it plays out with the new persons' question. I think a lot of redundancy could be eliminated of more people (myself included) would read back through old threads, and if one is similar to their situation, then add a "fresh" post, thereby bumping it up, and continue on. It gives a sort of "built-in" history and amy indeed include some the links and mentions to other threads of "lore" that so many people tell us to go search for. Anyhow, not condemning you Butch, I've learned a lot from your posts and you certainly know the game better than I, it's just that I think it's a good idea to revive old threads, if they relate to a common problem/issue.
Re: Re: Next step to remove paid collec thanks, butch! ha! i didn't notice that it was exactly a year later! what a coincidence. i will be sending off a letter today.
Re: Re: Next step to remove paid collec Fedup, how in the world did you interpret Butch's ironic observation as criticism? It is interesting to note when a thread is bumped exactly one year later. So his one line ("Bumped a thread exactly one year later?") merited your scathing multi-paragraph whipping? Wowzah. Doc
Re: Re: Next step to remove paid collec In this thread, the discussion revolves around the OC doing a hard inquiry. What about a soft inquiry? Thanks!
Re: Next step to remove paid collec Okay, as I go back, I guess I mis-read and my post came off different than I meant. I wasn't trying to criticize or complain about Butch's comments, I actually admire all his knowledge and postings. I didn't catch that he was pointing out an "oddity" of exactly 1 year, I thought he was saying something along the lines of "why are you pulling up an old post from a year ago ..." Sorry Butch, my bad, I mis-read/mis-interpreted the whole thing. Please administer any de-merits or minus marks on my creditenet scorecard. FedUp2003
Re: Next step to remove paid collec okay. i checked my experian disputes and noticed that citibank has, indeed, pulled a soft inquiry on my report. yay! that's a violation. should i hit them with just a non-PP letter or should i add the part about them deleting the charge-off and sending the $1000? just so you know, i sent them a validation letter about this closed account and have not recieved a response yet (their time is not up).
Re: Next step to remove paid collec update, citi pulled a soft on my credit, BUT they also sent me an application for credit which i recieved yesterday evening. did they cover themselves or should i still send them the non-PP letter? the credit offer was from citi in s.d. (i think), but the address on the inquiry was from texas (which is where i sent the validation request) and it's dated a couple of days after they recieved the request. what do you think?
Re: Next step to remove paid collec update: i sent citibank a letter saying that they were reporting incorrectly...they pulled my credit (yay)...i sent a non-PP via CRRR and 1 week later faxed a copy of both letters to their corporate office...today i recieved a letter from them saying that they were deleting (double yay!) BUT they didn't respond to my request for the $1000 and removal of the inquiry (boo). should i push this? if so, how? any ideas?
Re: Next step to remove paid collec update: i sent citibank a letter saying that they were reporting incorrectly...they pulled my credit (yay)...i sent a non-PP via CRRR and 1 week later faxed a copy of both letters to their corporate office...today i recieved a letter from them saying that they were deleting (double yay!) BUT they didn't respond to my request for the $1000 and removal of the inquiry (boo). should i push this? if so, how? any ideas?
Re: Next step to remove paid collec Awe ... no biggy FedUp. Didn't mean to criticize. Actually I think your idea is a very good one. Eventually we'd have long, detailed discussions, which exhaust an issue thoroughly. Posts with 500 replies don't scare me. Just see if you can figure out a way to ... ahem ... "entice" the DF to pull your report. Then we'll nutcase em.
Re: Re: Next step to remove paid collec Good Job Diva. That's exactly how this is supposed to work. Forcing the issue over the 1000 bux is up to you. If it were me, I'd say, drop the inq as well, and we'll forget the whole thing. That should sound fair enough to them, Don'tcha Think?
Re: Next step to remove paid collec ---------------------------------- Quote: DanceRat's technique is terrific but is the opposite of the Nutcase sequence. The DanceRat tactic denies the validity of the underlying debt. The Nutcase sequence acknowledges the validity of the underlying debt and instead alleges possible inaccuracies with respect to CRA reporting. ----------------------------------- Doc, I read both series and it seems like DanceRats method also acknoledges the validity of the debt but simply claims that one detail is incorrect. And as it is in violation to report any detail incorrectly, he is asking that the whole tradeline be removed. Therefore, if NC fails, I don´t see why you couldn´t move to this strategy (or the other way around!) Jimbob
Re: Re: Next step to remove paid collec hmmmmmm, Jimbob, Complete and accurate; updated and verifiable -- always, that is the reporting standard. The nutcase series (originally -- not the tweaked versions) is for accurately reporting, paid in full, negative information. DRat's is based on furnishing and reporting requirements -- existing errors. They are hugely different. Sassy
Re: Re: Next step to remove paid collec Hmm, I guess that`s true. DRat is for if their is actually an error that you can take advantage of to clear the tradeline (paid or not paid?) while NC is for something that may be accurately reporting. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
hi just wondering if the same tact would work with bk account's that have been discharged but carry error's from ca's thanks jjgross
Thread is FIVE years old, and if you read the last page Butch was ticked off because someone unearthed this thread and posted after only ONE YEAR. Laws and tactics have changed in five years so you would do well to read current threads. Woofer
thanks for this forum i wish i had known 2years ago.my question is along the same line on a discharged bk a ca has my wife listed instead of me a medical bill plus her report is full of error's,any ideas i have been reading the post i'm so go easy thank's mad in idaho
