O.k. I've finally figured out what's going on w/ Junum, TU, and the whole fraud dept. issue! It took some picking of my brain but here it goes: Long story short....back in 97, I got a copy of my credit report and found a trade on there from 1st Premier bank. It was for a card w/ $250 limit in good standing. I thought this was some mistake so I called 1st Premier and they investigated. Turns out that someone had opened up an account using my info and their info as either AU or joint. First Premier said that they would take care of it and have it removed from my files, etc. I just found out that whenever anything is reported to TU as fraud, they automatically flag your account (others don't unless you tell them to). I'm assuming this is what happened to me since First Premier contacted the bureaus to have the trade deleted due to fraud. So, now that I know what's going on....I can rest easy. I guess I'll call TU on Monday to confirm all of this and request that my file be put back due to the fact that I can not be approved for instant credit if my account is flagged. As far as Junum is concerned.......I guess I'll stick with them because at first I thought that disputing was a simple as making 2 phone calls (TU and Exp) and starting an on-line investigation (Equ). I just realized that it's probably better to write letters and use their forms than to call.....I know that the reps can see your dispute history and when they see that you have disputes continually going, they might decided to take other measures and question your reasons, etc. The people in the mailroom probably just enter your diputes into the system thus not knowing your account history. So, me doing disputes over the phone might not be as effective as doing them in writing. In light of this new found knowledge....I doubt that Junum is doing on-line stuff and calling. They probably mailing all disputes. Sorry to all for the confusion.....I didn't mean to frighten anyone.
Re: No Shake -n- Bake on Junum Not to bag on you but...you scared the crap out of a lot of Junum customers....lol. Great lesson (to not jump) and I'm glad you figured it out. am
TO ALL JUNUM CUSTOMERS SSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!! MY BAD!!!!!!!!!!! :-(
Re: No Shake -n- Bake on Junum THE CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES...suspect everybody is using "SOMEBODY"...
MikeB OH.......YOU GOT JOKES NOW, HUH? O.K. O.K. I GET IT... This aint amateur night at the Apollo you know! Where is that darn clown when you need him! HA! :-o
How R U gonna know if? Yep, think you got it right! Here is why I agree with you. There are some gurus out there who say you should not use certified. They seem to think it makes you look too much like you are a "pro" or a law firm or whatever. But if you don't use certified, then how are you ever going to prove you did anything if you have to prove it sometime? You can't and that's obvious. Courts would demand you have the certified receipt to back up what you say in the event you decided you needed to go to court and sue somebody. Moving on, if you don't send them any kind of letter, you won't even have a record of what was said or done. You can't legally tape somebody and then go try to use it in a court of law because the courts won't accept that. In some cases, you can use tape recorded evidence if you first transcribe it to paper, what was said, and the gov't does that all the time in dope and other cases. But they don't bring the actual tape recording of your phone conversations into court. So phone calls leave you with no record at all, even if you tape record them. I think it's better to use the certified mail. I'd almost be willing to bet that the credit bureaus put those webpage forms and phone call submissions out there to trick you into thinking you get better and faster results on the web or on the phone. If you use their "EZ1040" on line filing form, you just MIGHT come to grief over it later. I'd far rather use the old tried and true method even if it is less convenient and much slower. Bill Bauer
Re: How R U gonna know if? Will the courts acknowledge "delivery confirmation" from the USPS. Best regards, Sam
delivery confirmation I don't know about the delivery confirmation--maybe since you can pull up the delivery record from the USPS' computers. I have been an avid user of their new Signature Confirmation service. These are the hot pink forms and are similar to the dayglo green forms for delivery confirmation. The nice thing about SC is you get proof of delivery like delivery confirmation or return receipt but a day or so after delivery, you can have the PO send a copy of the recipient's signature and address to any fax machine or via standard snailmail. Yes, a RR would do the same thing but this is faster--plus there is a small chance the RR might not make it back to you.
Yes, they will Yes, they will. There are a few landmark cases on that very point. I don't remember their exact cites so you can go look it up for yourself, but there was one case where a company in California claimed they never got merchandise and the plaintiff had such proof and won the case. There are other cases out there where the plaintiff sued and had no proof of delivery at all, and of course, lost the case. Any third party such as UPS or FEDEX or any public delivery service who can provide proof of delivery ot the item in question will be relied upon by the courts. Bill Bauer
Re: Yes, they will If memory serves, RR is much cheaper than Delivery Confirmation or Signature Confirmation. We often use DC for packages and the item (afaik) has to be sent priority so you're already into it what? 3.50? Plus the .35/.40 cents~ whatever it is now~ for DC. Seems like RR would be much better, especially from a cost point of view....but then again, that small amount of money matters to me
Yes, they will BUT YOU NEED--& One thing I forgot to mention. The court isn't likely to buy the shipping of whatever if you don't have a receipt showing somebody on the other end acutally received and signed for the merchandise or whatever. That signed receipt is the proof of the pudding. Bill Bauer
Thanks for the post MP$40 I am glad you figured this thing out. Keep us posted on what happens. I think that when a consumer lets a credit restoration firm assist them, the consumer should not contact the CRA's and draw attention to himself/herself. Especially since none of us knows exactly what is in the letters written for the consumer. It's just an opinion. I may post this as a separate topic on the board. Your post did not scare me in any way. I know your concern was/is legitimate and I would only be critical if you hadn't told us what happened. Good luck
Re: Thanks for the post MP$40 You may be right about people not calling the cra's, but, the reason I called transunion was because of the problem I was having with equifax claiming they had not received the disputes. I felt I needed to verify that all 3 had received them.
Re: I respect that LKH Yes, they will BUT YOU NEED--& Author: Bill Bauer (adsl-64-217-24-66.dsl.okcyok.swbell.net) Date: 04-22-01 08:42 One thing I forgot to mention. That signed receipt is the proof of the pudding. Bill Bauer Reply To ===It does not prove what was sent????
