Re: Paid collections, trying to rem I see. How will I know if they access my credit report illegaly without monitoring, though?
No, you're not screwed. No..no. What you want right now is to obtain the paper copies of your credit report, you want to personally verify that the BOA info is inaccurate. That's your evidence. It's a matter of how you write the letter to BOA because you must also keep in mind, this is a PAID account. The average time spent on each credit dispute is reported to be 4 minutes or less and you do not tell them *where* it is inaccurately reported. You only tell them that it is.
Look on the back pages of the reports if you have them. There should be listings if any company has viewed your credit files.
Alright, I see! I think the approach I am going to take is a mixture as such: 1) Contact the CA's about the accounts I have paid through them, ask them to file a Universal Delete Form (UDF) since they are paid via phone. Do not reveal any information other than that the reports are inaccurate and need to be deleted. 2) Fax them documentation and an official letter requesting a UDF, keep record of this. 3) If the CA's do not delete and access my credit report illegaly, sue them for breach of the FCRA (?). 4) If they don't violate or delete, contact the OC and ask them for full validation of the debt. 5) If the OC's do not delete and access my credit report illegaly, sue them for breach of the FCRA (?). The only thing I'm trying to figure out is how to document the fact that they have accessed my accounts illegally. Should I just pay the fee and order reports from the three CRA's in about 45 days to see if they have done this? That seems like the most effective way for now. If none of those steps trip them up, I should go after the CRA's for not maintaining the correct tradeline, right? Ask them to validate the information?
http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49376&highlight=UDF I read this thread above, and I think I'll go with the nutcase series of letters, attempting to get these tradelines deleted. I'll continue to post my questions! I have faxed the first nutcase letter to a CA, so we'll see how that goes. Wish me luck!
Okay, here's an update: I spoke to ARS National Services which deals with Capital One. I settled the debt through them and paid it off, and they said they cannot do the deletion of the tradeline since it was sent back to Capital One. Should I send the nutcase letter to Capital One, requesting validation and continue on my path there? EDIT: Also, one of the OC's sent my contract with my signature and confirmation that I was going to pay that debt. Is there any possible way to get that information removed now, since they obviously have it? How would I go about disputing that or trying to delete it? EDIT2: It's not going very well - all of the CA's are saying they have transferred back the information to the OC's. In this case, I should file nutcase letters with all my OC's and try to trip them up, correct? What if they respond with signed documents proving that I asked for credit? Thanks for help!
The CAs are responsible for the accurate reporting of TLs they have placed, regardless of what they have done with the information. If the CA has placed inaccurate information on your reports, you can dispute with them, under FACTA, or thru the CRA they reported to, under FCRA. If they fail to correct, you can sue. On what basis are you disputing: that it is not your account, or that the account is erronouesly reported?
Re: Paid collections, trying to rem Well, I was going to dispute based on that it is not my account, but I have paid them already - doesn't that basically state that it's my account? Should I send the nutcase letter to the CA's and the OC's stating that I want proof these are my accounts?
Re: Paid collections, trying to rem It implies it. But there may be cases where you might want to make the case that paying an account is not an indication that it is your account. Examples include FDCPA violations and use of deception by the CA to collect on an account that was not in fact yours, or that was not in fact owing. Or as sometimes happens, when a CA places an account on your reports that is not yours just before you are about to close on a mortgage, and you are coerced, by your lender's requirement to have no unpaid accounts, to pay it anyway even though you don't owe it. There are two questions: 1) How much trouble is it for the reporting CA to deal with a paid account, especially if they no longer have any information on it? 2) How would your claim that it is erroneous, and their claim that it is accurate, appear in court if you took it to court?
Re: Re: Paid collections, trying to 1) Pretty tough, I suppose. However, they say they have no authority to delete the tradelines, only the OC does. Is this true? 2) Good point. However, refer to #1 - do I need to fight the OC's, since they said they transferred it back to the OC?
Re: Re: Paid collections, trying to "1) Pretty tough, I suppose. However, they say they have no authority to delete the tradelines, only the OC does. Is this true?" No it is not true. They are brushing you off. If you went to the OC, they would probably tell you they aren't reporting, so they can't do anything either. It is all your fault, regardless. No-one is responsible, and no-one can do anything. That is what the system is designed to do, and the sooner you realize it, the sooner you get back in your box where you belong. Those pesky laws are just a big nuisance, and we would all be better off (more profitable) if we could just ignore them. If they placed the TL on your report, they are the party responsible for ensuring its accuracy. If you dispute the TL thru the CRA, the CRA will not go back to the OC, if the OC did not place the TL, they will go back to the CA to verify. If it is the CA's TL that is in error, and they have verified erroneously, then it is the CA you can deal with to force it to be corrected. They may have various contractual agreements with the OC, but those do not relieve the CA of its legal obligations. The OC may have additional liability for the CAs errors, or even possibly for the CA's FDCPA violations, if for example, the CA was acting as the OC's agent, and the OC was aware, or should have been aware, of the CA's actions. (Note: I am not an attorney.)
Re: Re: Re: Paid collections, tryin Ah, I see. Okay, I am going to send out all my nutcase #1 letters today via certified mail to all the CA's in question. If they cannot validate the debt with signed contractual agreements based on my end, then I can sue them for erroreous reporting and request deletion as a settlement judgement. If they can validate the debt and provide me with signed contracts from the OC's with my signature, what is my play then?
Re: Re: Re: Paid collections, tryin More important: What is your response if they ignore you? If you sue, can you show in court, that the reporting is inaccurate? Can they produce documentation showing it is accurate? If the account was paid, and they are no longer collecting, they might remove, or they might provide some validation, but your FDCPA right to validation appears gone. You can still act on erroneous reporting, since accurate reporting is required by FCRA, and you can dispute with whoever is reporting inaccurately under FACTA.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Paid collections, t I don't think I can show the reporting is inaccurate - I can show them my credit reports showing that the varying reports on multiple entries across the CRA's are different, would that suffice? Where is the burden of proof in such a lawsuit? Wouldn't *they* have to prove that my account is correct?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Paid collections, t From the different reporting, can you show that some of the information on one of the reports is inaccurate? And more important to having leverage to negotiate a settlement that might include deletion: Can you show that the inaccurate information on one of your reports is resulting in significant monetary damage to you? For example, one of your reports shows a paid account as not paid off, you dispute thru the CRA, the CA verifies. You then get turned down for a loan, and then lender says the reason was the unpaid chargeoff on that report. If the account was in fact paid, and the CA had verified it as unpaid, then you could make the case that their error resulted in your being turned down for the loan, with liability for what that cost (possibly significant if you were buying a house). The CA might then have a financial incentive to settle with you as part of, or to reduce the amount of, any monetary settlement you might negotiate, as compared with losing in court and having the court award damages. They are not so principled that they are willing to pay good money on a losing case.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paid collection I don't think I can show they are inaccurate, probably not - they all are showing paid collections, which is accurate. Maybe I have leverage based on the conflicting CRA reports, though. There is significant monetary damage - I am being turned down for Dell Computer loans and other credit cards which would go a long way in advancing my consulting business. I just read this thread: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42188 It seems impossible that these CA's and OC's can get together and furnish me with the data within 30 days. Basically I will file nutcase letters today via certified mail, record the date of receipt and start the clock. If I do not receive the signed contracts with origin date, full payment history, and all collection activity within 30 days, I will take them to court and simply quote from the law and precedents already set since they were unable to validate the paid debt. The 30-day statute will apply to them since the CA's are the Data Furnishers, correct? It shows how it works around in the FCRA. This is good news. I am learning so much!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paid collection The FCRA 30 day requirement is for the CRAs to complete their investigation, so if the CA wants the disputed account to stay, they must respond and verify to the CRA within that timeframe. They don't have to provide the CRA any documentation proving the accuracy of what they are verifying. The FDCPA 30 day requirement originates out of the debt collector's obligation to notify the debtor within 5 days of first contact that the debtor can dispute within 30 days, or the collector will assume the debt is valid. If the debtor does dispute, then the collector cannot legally continue collection, including verifying with the CRA, until they obtain validation from the original creditor and send it to the debtor. If the bill is paid, the collector has no obligation under FDCPA to provide validation, since they are not engaged in "collection", within 30 days, or ever. They do still have obligations under FCRA and FACTA to report accurately.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paid collection What has sometimes happened, is that the CA, or OC, has verified, but then the consumer has redisputed thru the CRA, or even thru the CA or OC, under FCRA and FACTA. This second dispute may place a stronger obligation on the DF to actually check the accuracy of the reporting, and not just depend on their computer records. These sorts of cases have occurred in cases of mistaken identities involving people with similar names, or in cases where one person declared bankruptcy, and another person, with some financial connection, ended up with a Bankruptcy notation on their reports when they had not done so. Those are the sorts of cases where the cursory verification will not result in correction, substantial damages will result, leading to lawsuits, and a court might likely say: "What do you bozos think you are doing? This is obviously wrong, and your arguments that your lame verifications are all you are required to do don't cut it."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paid collec Man, now I'm even more lost/depressed. I am trying to research and become knowledgeable about what I need to do, but since I paid, it's like the CA's simply don't have to do anything anymore, and I can't sue them. This is really depressing. I have absolutely no idea how I'm supposed to get these off my record, because I am reading seven thousand conflicting reports even on this own site. First I read to dispute paid collections with the CA's and file against them for not furnishing information, then you tell me this won't work. Then I hear to dispute with CRA's and sue them for not maintaining verifiable tradelines, then I hear this isn't going to work. What is my specific recourse here? What exactly can I do?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paid collec I am going to be a bit more specific, since I think people are not understanding my post fully. I paid these collections, and the collections no longer appear on my credit reports. However, the credit accounts still do, stating that they are "paid collections" or "profit loss" chargeoffs. I'm not trying to be pesky, but I am receiving a lot of information that conflicts with each other. Here are the facts: 1) I do NOT have any collections activity on my accounts. 2) My tradelines are marked "charged off" or "paid collections." 3) I have disputed these and that is what was returned to me. What is my course of action here based on these facts? Should I be going after CA's requesting validation despite the paid collections? Should I be going after OC's to validate the debt with the entire information, including signed contracts and payment histories? Should I go after the CRA's for inaccurate reporting because some of the negative items have different descriptions despite being the same TL's? Please be specific, I'm getting really confused.
