OMG! BK13, 18 mos old, deleted!!!

Lisa,

I'm sorry I was remembering wrong, it was EX that deleted.

I was taking the same strategy as you, working on the individual tradelines (none show discharged or included in bankruptcy); there's only 2 left now, I started with 16 derogs and a score of 595. I don't know what my score is now but I've 5 to go -- 2 of which are the darn mortgage company that won't post a payment on time for anything under the sun! So really, 3 of the 16 remain -- wooooooo hoooooo, I'll have a double with you and am ordering a backup round!

Anyway, I'd not disputed before and got irritated and decided what the hell, what can they do, keep on reporting it?

Yep, still showing on EQ and TU -- I've not disputed them yet.

I disputed online, not accurate, never filed for a bankruptcy with $0 claim and $0 liability amounts -- please delete.

And that's the straight up truth, I never have filed with $0 claims and $0 liabilities.

I think the kudos for that one goes to an old post of LKH or KHM, sorry I'm always getting your initials mixed up. Speak up please so you can be properly recognized!

Sassy

 

Lisa,

"Just so I get this straight....In the beginning you had a public record of a CH13. You had 16 additional accounts, reporting negatively, as "included in bk." Right?"

Not exactly, when I first started I had a public record C13 showing as filed (discharge not reported).

I had 16 additional tradelines reporting negatively -- only one of the additional tradelines was reporting as "included in BK." It has since been deleted.

2 mortgages after discharge are part of the 16 negative tradelines -- they are both open and current accounts just reporting lates similar to your chase saga.

The remaining tradelines all should have been reported as "included in BK" but were not and still are not.

"Now you have the bk gone on EX. You still have 3 or so of the accounts that were reporting as "included in bk" but now they are just reporting without that designation? "

Now the BK has been deleted and there are 3 remaining negatives reporting in the collection section. Of those 3, one has been updated by the CA to show "included in BK" the remaining 2 are reporting without the "included in BK" though they were included.

Whewwwwwwww, I'm confusing myself, I hope I didn't confuse you more, LOL.

"My question is: Did you dispute the "included in" accounts to have that statement deleted? Now that the bk is gone, you can dispute them on some other basis and have them deleted? "

No, I never disputed the "included in BK" statement. On the 1 that was showing it was included, prior to it's deletion, I disputed as not mine.

I suppose you could use this as a reason to dispute but you risk ending up with just a negative tradeline if it's not deleted -- either way, without microscopic attention and time, someone actually willing to work, I doubt it would be verified.

This was my plan:

I sent validation letters for all collection/charge-off CA's.

Not a one of them properly validated and most didn't respond at all, btw, nor did any mark the tradelines as disputed by the consumer.

Those that didn't delete based on the validation letter, I then disputed as not mine.

Those that remained I then sent validation 2 letters stating violations, continued reporting and/or verification w/o providing validation and w/o the dispute notation.

To those that verifed or verified and updated incorrectly, I sent a letter stating their FCRA and FDCPA violations with an additional reference that they were reporting in violation of the bankruptcy discharge and that if they didn't remove the tradeline I may be compelled to pursue contempt of court charges and petition the court to reopen my case, resolve the violations and secure me the relief provided by the discharge order.

I never did dispute to have "included in BK" added -- I didn't want it added, I figured my chances were better in having the tradelines deleted without the attachment to the BK and they were so old I decided I would do the validation route first -- I'm saving that for my last resort I've already tried everything else disputes. BTW, most of mine were medical collections that were paid in full via the terms of the C13.

We own additional property so as a condition of keeping that property instead of having it liquidated, we had to do a 100% payoff.

I was willing to keep the knocks to my credit score by not having the "included in BK" added -- I'd considered doing that first. I'm not convinced though that an unrated status as it's supposed to be with that notation really help your scores though, that's why I decided on the other route of validation first -- It was selfish and I had more to gain.

The creditors OC's and CA's alike, upon notice of the filing of BK, should have updated the tradelines at that time to include a notation that a BK had been filed, zero'd out the balance, and changed the status to unrated -- they are the obnoxious butts that don't do what they are supposed to do.

At the latest they should have done this when the BK was discharged, for which they also received notice.

Then, when given the opportunity to update either via my letters to them directly or via the CRA disputes -- only 1 bothered to do so. How bogus is that? but, it works for me!

I don't think it's right to include the tradelines with the BK notation as well as the public record BK entry anyway -- it's a double-whammy.

I think the key is the information, if reported, has to be complete, accurate, updated and verifiable. I don't have any negative tradelines on any report that are -- the tradelines are wrong, with and without the "included in BK" notation.

I intend to keep disputing and sending letters for every little thing until they all either go away or they get it right.

Sassy

 

The rest don't have to respond to the validation, but included in the validation is a sentence stating your dispute of the account. Because of this they have to mark the credit reports "in dispute" and if they don't it's a violation.

 

WAVING Lisa,

Sorry this is so long but I've a wild hair tonight!

OK, trying to get my brain around this. I do my best thinking on the toilet btw, lol, or have my best ideas upon awakening in the morning -- I didn't just wake up nor am I sitting on the toilet ;-).

hmmmmm,

All OC's on all reports;

All reporting as negative/unrated except one that was reinserted without notice;

All marked included in BK except the same reinserted one that is now more incorrect than before it was reinserted;

All CRA's but 1 showing C13 filed.

Mailed verification letters, only 1 response and that was subsequently deleted as a goodwill act That was nice of them, especially since they are getting their money too, obviously no grudges or axes to grind there -- they know you're paying the BK price and not adding to it.

After receiving your verification letters none marked the tradeline as in dispute.

Did any of them update or change information based on your verification request and when you requested verification did you say the tradelines were disputed?

Did you then dispute with the CRA's and they were verified?

Are they all reporting correct information?

Are they all reporting the exact same information to each of the CRA's?

No worries about your battle to have the included in BK notations included on all of your tradelines, I think you're doing great and especially since you are addressing while still in BK that puts you miles and miles ahead both now and in the long run.

Updated, correct, accurate and verifiable -- 100% -- that's my mantra, it is written on a sticky note hanging in front of my face on my monitor so I never forget or let the requirements be diminished.

Because the OC chooses to report information about you, you can dispute the debt or any portion of the information furnished at any time; you can ask for proof of any piece of information and if it's not up-to-date, correct, accurate and verifiable, it has to be either corrected and updated or deleted. That they don't want to respond to your request for verification is just bad business, I say -- if they aren't willing to verify they shouldn't report it. They'd have to verify the information for a judge.

It is as valid to request verification of a correct negative tradeline as it is to request verification of an incorrect one -- this doesn't have anything to do with morality either, if it can't be verified within 30 days, it has to be deleted. "...a consumer reporting agency is not required to remove accurate derogatory information from a consumer's file, unless the information is outdated under section 605 OR cannot be verified."

While your stay is in effect they can't attempt to collect anything. There's some caselaw saying reporting is a collection attempt and violates the stay -- especially with balances showing due or past-due.

Your balances have to be zero'd out once you are discharged, that no one updates BK tradelines should work in your favor with the more time that passes.

If the information isn't exactly the same on all 3 reports, send them a letter asking how they can verify and assert accuracy when they aren't even reporting the same information to each bureau.

If a tradeline was updated or corrected, make sure it is updated exactly the same on all 3 reports -- if not, send a letter that they have violated the FCRA by not updating and correcting to all bureaus.

If they continue to report, it's an additional violation for failing to correct or update what they KNEW or should have known to be inaccurate. You can't only know or should know one bureau is wrong.

If a sol has expired send them a letter that the tradeline is obsolete.

Send a letter saying your account was included in bankruptcy and continuing to report is a violation of the stay.

Send a letter saying you are concerned with the re-payment terms of your C13 and without verification or deletion will consider asking the Trustee to require information verifying the tradeline so you can be sure you aren't overpaying -- especially since you are still making payments.

Send additional verification letters to those remaining, telling them you are disputing the completeness and accuracy of the tradeline. That they failed to respond to your previous lawful request for verification and additionally have violated the FCRA by not showing the tradeline as disputed by the consumer.

That they further violated the FCRA by obtaining a copy of your report without a permissable purpose.

That you wrongly assumed by their lack of response that they wouldn't be willing to commit further violations by verifying information that was not updated, accurate, or complete with the CRA's.

That because they have been notified by you and the Trustee, their actions are willful and they are now liable for additional penalties.

That they are violating the automatic stay of bankruptcy by continuing collection activity and reporting unverifiable, inaccurate, and incomplete information.

To cure these violations they must delete the tradeline in its entirety from each of the CRA's and provide you with evidentiary documentation that they have done so.

If they don't delete the tradeline you may be compelled to exercise your legal rights and report their abuses to the Trustee and pursue contempt of court charges as well as pursuing legal actions for violations of the FCRA and the Unfair Trade and Deceptive Business Practices Act, violations of State law, and filing complaints against them with your Attorney General, BBB, State Department of Banking and the FTC, plus you will tell their moms! LOL, just kidding.

Send all the letters again to their consumer advocacy departments.

Send all the letters again to their legal departments.

Send all the letters to anyone you can complain to -- and make sure they get a copy of the complaint.

Dispute that the balances are incorrect -- they are!

Dispute that the commencement of delinquency date is incorrect or inaccurate.

Dispute any charge-offs/write-offs that are listed with included in BK.

Dispute any and all late payments. For equifax -- On what dates was I xx times 30 days late, or 60 or 120 whatever they have; include the dates or delete.

Also for equifax, dispute their previous status notations as inaccurate or wrong xx/02 R9.

Did you ask for the certification for the 1 that was reinserted? Tell the CRA they reinserted without notice and without certification in violation of the FCRA and that you want it deleted.

For those that you think are reporting correctly, none with balances can be correct, and you think they can verify -- let them sit for a while and work on the others.

Eventually they will delete or you will be in a good position to show any judge that you tried everything and only as a last resort filed a complaint.

Just be a pain in the butt, lise! They already are getting their money via the terms of your C13, they can't sue you, can't do anything to you actually. The CRA's can't declare you frivolous if you're always disputing a previously undisputed piece of information within the tradeline.

You have at least until your discharge to wear them down. Once discharged, ask them for verification of the payments received.

If you ever run out of reasons or tired, you've enough violations already to file in small claims, don't forget the 1 year SOL, and with every letter you send or every dispute you initiate you'll likely get more. When you've had enough, take it to a judge.

I know you keep immaculate records, forget that you do, it puts you in a better mindset for getting the verification you deserve. Like LizardKing's not mine position, think of what you would need if you were a victim of identity theft or the accounts truly weren't yours.

As the wise Doc once posted, the FCRA doesn't apply to us! We can write and click as often as we want to, just because we can and because persistance is a virtue ;-)

Sassy

 

You've written letters, disputed with the CRA's, nothing is marked as disputed, continuing to report without the dispute notation, and nothing updated or corrected.

This is from the duties of furnishers section of the FCRA, duties after notice by the CRA that is, 623(b)(1)(C) and (b)(1)(D) ...report the results to the CRA, and, if the investigation establishes that the information was, in fact, incomplete or inaccurate, report the results to all CRAs to which the furnisher provided the information that compile and maintain files on a nationwide basis

...report the results to ALL CRA's... ALL, gotta love that!

They are bound by their duty to reinvestigate and update and correct or delete -- further they are bound to do the same to ALL CRA's which they've given the information to.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/harris.htm
Section 623(a)(2) of the FCRA addresses the duty to correct and update information by "furnishers," or persons who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies ("CRA") such as credit bureaus. In particular, this section requires a person that "has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate" to "promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination" and provide any information needed to make it complete and accurate.(1) Thus, on its face, this provision requires a furnisher to provide corrected or updated information to the consumer reporting agency that it had reported to originally. A furnisher that reports current information to a different CRA has done nothing to "correct and update information" with CRA that possess the information that the furnisher has now determined is incomplete or erroneous. This duty extends to all student loan accounts reported to CRAs, regardless of whether they were accurate at one point, because the section requires the furnisher both to "update" accounts as well as to "correct" those that were erroneous when submitted to the CRA.

And this section requires all information provided by the consumer to be reviewed -- why, I think it's good at some point to double-back with a letter to the CRA with copies of your requests of the furnisher saying they won't respond or won't consider it.

I really do think you are miles and miles ahead in having a great score and report at discharge. You've gotten the tradelines noted as included in BK so they should be unrated. You've double-checked, nothing has a date that would score otherwise? they aren't listed as still open? Though I doubt they don't hurt you, I don't think they hurt you as much with them showing as unrated ;-). The paperwork only shows that the tradelines were included, it doesn't address the accuracy of them -- that is altogether different. You are using this time now while you are still in BK to get the tradelines accurate or deleted -- most people, myself included tend to not even think or look at the reports until AFTER discharge.

Once you file, everything should be zero'd out, they could keep the high or original balance, if they can get it right. The same too for the payment history -- it should be deleted. It should just report an accurate tradeline, with no negatives attached in the detail and a notation that it was included in BK.

Reporting with a charge-off is a triple-whammy, you get zapped with the public record listing, the charge-off whammy and then the included whammy.

FTC Opinion letter on included in BK item listed with charge-off:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/lovern51.htm

I swear they must not keep records at all! I'm always surprised, still, at how sloppy their recordkeeping is, no wonder there are sherman's and littons and chases and enrons!

Court says furnishers face reinvestigation liability:
http://www.a2cb.com/collection/may2001.htm

May 2001

Court Says Furnishers Face Reinvestigation LiabilityUnder FCRA

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has ruled that consumers may sue those who furnish data to credit reporting agencies for failure to carry out their reinvestigation responsibilities under Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). (Dornhecker v. Ameritech Corp., N.D. Ill., No. 00 C 26, 6/7/00). The judge ruled that while the FCRA does not specifically create such a liability, one could be implied from the way the law is written.

Tough noogies for those that didn't want to participate -- the discharge covers everything prior to your filing date.

Yes, I think asking for verification, disputing, second attempt at verification, re-disputing -- sets us up to be Lizardking clones ;-). Actually, you should only have to ask once and then dispute -- that we've gone to 2 or 3 attempts back and forth should only work to prove that we tried all available remedies prior to filing or asking the court for intervention. The courts are supposed to be the last resort, they don't like having to make someone do what should have been done all along especially if they are just ignoring all requests!

Reporting a balance is a collection activity. If you default or don't complete they could then update to reflect a balance. Collection activity violates the stay and purpose of the BK protection.

http://207.41.16.140/judge-walker/97SINGLEY.HTML
Turning to the motion before the Court now, even if it is true that Movant=s report to the credit bureau contains truthful information that is a matter of public record, such a report, if made with the intent to harass or coerce a debtor and/or co-debtor into paying a pre-petition debt, could violate the automatic stays of sections 362 and/or 1301. King v. World Omni Fin. Corp. (In re King), Chp. 13 Case No. 97-42598, Adv. No. 98-4009, slip op. at 4 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 9, 1998); see also In re Sommersdorf, 139 B.R. 700, 701 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1991) (finding that an adverse notation on co-debtors credit report constituted a section 1301 violation). The Court is unable to conclude, based on the facts presented by Movant as not being subject to a genuine dispute, that Movant did not act with the intent to collect the debt from Mrs. Singley and/or Debtor when it made the report to the credit bureau.

I've read the Sommersdorf case but can't put my fingers on it, I'll dig it up with a link.

There is a SOL on bringing charges for FCRA/FDCPA violations, it's one year from the violation and in some cases (identity theft) that had it extended to two years.

http://www.fortworth-bankruptcy.com/Post Bankruptcy Credit.htm

If a creditor does try to collect a debt after your bankruptcy discharge, write the creditor and state that your debts were discharged. It is up to the creditor to establish that a specific debt was not discharged in your bankruptcy.

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?threadid=20465

this is the list that you are required to file with the court. also send the CRA's your discharge order from the court. Any creditor that does not respond is automatically included but they do not get any money out of the payment plan for ch 13. that means all the debt you owed them gets legally zero'ed out. You owe them nothing. If they report it as anything other than zero balance, included in bakruptcy, and from date of original delinquency they are in violation of the FCRA. If you dispute because of anything being reported differently than above, and they verify to the CRA's anyway, you have proof hat they violated the FCRA. Go back to the BK judge and file a motion with them to have the judge order any company not reporting properly to do so. I hear those BK judges don't like their orders being violated.

I would ask your BK lawyer. If I understand it correctly, it is from the date of original delinquency. As long as you fullfill the terms of the ch 13 order, you won't ever be delinquent during the payback and the creditor is required to write off any amount that the court does not order to be paid back...therefore, the 7 year limit on reporting should still be to original date you became delinquent which is way before things got bad enough to make you file ch 13 to begin with.

the BK order from the judge legally clears those debts so there is no way the creditor could legally report some other, new date of delinquency unless you fail to make a ch 13 payment as ordered by the judge.

If a Bankruptcy discharge bars a collector from collecting couldn't you use this FTC opinion letter to prove thay are in violation of the discharge injunction?

CASS says in this opinion letter.

"Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls"

 

Sorry Sister Lisa,

My previous post was too long to WAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's the wording from my discharge, thanks to you, I actually read it again, LOL.

DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR(S)

The debtors having filed a Chapter 13 petition, the court finds that the debtors plan has been confirmed; that the debtors have fulfilled all requirements under the plan; that all allowed claims have been satisfied in accordance with the plan; and that with respect to any secured claims which continue beyond the term of the plan, any pre-petition defaults have been cured and such claims are current with no late charges, costs or attorney's fees owing.

By the time you are discharged, you should have a clean report with whatever tradelines remaining that were included accurate and listed as unrated. The unrated would really be unrated if they made the rest correct.

And with your new target card, you'll have established good credit while in BK that will boost your scores even more once that discharge date gets in there!

The 2 tradelines I have left that are giving me grief fall into that last part, secured, a mortgage and car loan AND why didn't I notice that the judge herself has deemed that history to be clean.

Now I've a new letter in my arsenal, and maybe the last one, I'm tired of trying -- surely after all the letters and disputes, the discharge itself is all the proof I need.

After so many letters, 2 to one and 3 to the other, plus disputes, all verified just like yours, it's apparent to me they aren't going to do a damn thing unless I file charges against them.

I know LizardKing says it is the fastest way and I love LK, but I'm just plain chicken!

I really think I am to the point where anything else is just a plain waste of time and I hate that they are forcing me to file.

I may be scared but file I will and now I feel much better with the wording of the discharge itself.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Sassy

 

How do repair a credit report with BK7 on it. ANy help here?

Thanks

 

forchanut,

Good to meet you, cute name!

How is it reading on your reports, the BK? are the filed and discharged dates correct?

Are the tradelines showing as included in BK?

Sassy

 

Whoa, long, long posts!


Not to stray too far from the subject, in my last two reports from Equifax they have deleted one of my two Chapter 13 records. The strange thing is that I never disputed with them, only with Experian. Dunno what to make of that.

Interestingly enough, Equifax didn't even have the bankruptcy records listed when I first started working on my Credit in January. Then about a month later they showed up...