Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Have they provided you the name of the original/same company that allegedly "validated" in 1998?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Ontrack: Nope, as of yet, they haven't... But this is getting curiouser and curiouser... A few weeks ago, when I received the last verification of this, and the report showed that I had been split, I sent a merge request, and a dispute of the account which had re-appeared on the 2nd file (not this account), which was deleted in June, when I sent them the fraud notice, and time-barred notice (to themselves, CA #2, and OC), anyhow today, I get the results from that investigation. And here's where I'm really perplexed... Both this account (and the account which was re-added to the duplicate file, which was the one which I did dispute) are gone from the merged report. This account is the only one which is shown as having been deleted. It'll be interesting to see if they tell the BBB that I disputed to TU, that I had duly notified them and the OC in early June of the fraudulent nature of *THIS* account, when the account that I had disputed with TU on that letter was the *OTHER* account which was showing on the second report. Since this account didn't appear on either TU, or EX until late June. Thankfully, I have the hard copy of the dispute to TU, showing the account that I did dispute for that reason. Of course, a hard delete is a hard delete, as Shanyl says "Another One Bites The Dust" Now to figure a way to get rid of them prematurely on EX... which means surviving the frivelous Previously Investigated dispute answer...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Is the original transaction based on a "phone check", or some other "phone service" such as 900 number calls? There have been a number of "accounts" that some CAs have been trying to collect on, based on alleged "services", alleged to have been provided to an alleged "debtor", with the only identification being the caller's phone number. The individual the CA has been attempting to collect from may be the current name and account with that phone number, not even whoever may have had that phone number at the time the "service" was provided. Pretty shadey.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... All they are claiming is that it is or was allegedly a NSF check, but they've referred to allegedly playing a tape of the transaction to the 'me' that they claim to have validated the account to.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Jam recently I authorized my CC company to debit my ck acct as a ( pay by check over the phone) the call BTW was recorded. In addition to this call my bank has the transaction posted in their files that I can view and obtain a copy of. so needless to say call their bluff since this is all a crock ask them what bank this alleged check was drawn from and the date, account # and transaction id # . even force post transaction have tracking codes. and NSF dates . if its not on paper it doesn't exist. good luck
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... I am hoping that a friendly schmooze may get a re-investigation on the only CRA which they are remaining on... It's a little bit more legalistic than Butch's "Dear friends" validation letter... But since they're trying to pass all the blame to EX, I'm playing it as we are both in the same side with this company, I know from the past two years of reports which I have received from EX, that their theory is idiotic, but they insist in putting EX in the line of fire... I'm disputing that neither of the company's nor their alleged parent company's existed at the time they claim the alleged transaction occurred, along with the docs from their states SOS's web site to prove it. that the company which they are claiming to be the alleged original creditor, can not be the alleged original creditor, since in fact they are a debt collector, according to the same SOS filings. that the account is not mine, or is fraudulent. and to top it off, that the account is so close to the obsoletion period that it should be deleted.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... So "the old they" played a tape to someone in 1998, therefore "the new they" doesn't have to validate to you in 2004? Why is this not just a scam, deserving of the attention of your state's AG?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... yep, that's basically the gist of what they're claiming... well, i only have one CRA to fight them on, so I am going to slather syrup on the CRA, at the same time getting ready to drop two sledgehammers on the company... but i'll have to wait until the beginning of next month to afford the sledgehammer's postage... (three certified letter packets 2 to the parent company (registered agent for the two sub-companies), 1 to their attorney (the registered agent for the parent company).) combining the PCM letter & the CD/ITS into one sledgehammer, and then hammering them with the EX dispute at the same time (if they don't PI it), to hopefully make it a hard delete.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... What do they claim the original "check" was authorized as payment for? You don't just authorize even a "phone check" just because someone calls, and says they would like one.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... They are going to some trouble to avoid any disclosure of the details of this account. If they thought it was valid, they would instead be providing you enough details to try to make you feel guilty, especially if it is past SOL. That says to me they know it is dubious, and their hand is weaker if they disclose anything. Just my poker sense.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... well, even their letter suggests that the 'me' that they provided the validation, told them that the person on the tape wasn't 'them'...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... So are they saying because it wasn't "them", it must be "you", or because it was "them" it must be "you"?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... nope, they're saying that I am the 'them' who they supposedly talked to back then... so by their own admission the 'me' that they talked to back then, told them that it was fraudulent, and they supposedly placed it on 'my' credit file since 1998, despite the fact that they only began reporting it on my credit file since June 2004.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Physical Check Question... Transferring a dubious, possibly fraudulent TL from one misidentified consumer to a second misidentified consumer, while refusing all legal requirements to validate, does not add legitimacy to the debt. It appears for multiple reasons, "they knew, or should have known" the information they are reporting is inaccurate. (i.e. "willfull") The blatancy demands a penalty. What is the claimed origin of the transaction? Does it originate from a company, or industry, known for either illegal marketting, or high fraudulent customer activity?
