Pd Chgoff/Orig Creditor/Validation

Is this a deficiency balance on a repossessed vehicle?

breeze

 

I did a modified letter to an original creditor and it worked to remove derogs from my reports.

I basically took out the FDCPA quotes (since orig creditors aren't subject to it) and I put in FCRA bits and pieces. that the debt was over 500 so they'd have to have a contract on file or it violates the statute of frauds anyway... (debt doesn't exist w/out a contract over 500)....

I basically (in laypersons terms) told them that I'd had instances in the past of
Fraud use of my info
Mixed credit files

all true.

and the 2 problems were causing me credit issues. That's why I was requesting NOT verification that they were seeing my info in their files... but Validation of a debt really existing (eg: a signed contract). I explained that a signed contract would help me in pursuit of these fraudulent issues. I also said I didn't want to have to litigate with them too because I already was litigating w/others... but I would if I had to get it fixed.

since they could produce NO signed contract, they deleted the info w/in 65 days from first receipt of my original letter (I did 2 followup letters) and I also faxed the letters to expedite the process.

I was reasonable nice, but put in phrases that time was of the essence since I was applying for loans and their incorrect info was holding me up.. causing me financial and emotional harms.... and that I was trying to get this fixed quickly so I wouldn't have to sue them to remove the incorrect info (and for damages if the situation hurt me too much)... you get the idea.

I mean really, the only thing they had to do to make me go away was to correct a few computer blips... and fax letters to the Big 3 Stooges...

 

OK, nevermind.....

I was asking because there are state laws regulating the collection of deficiency balances of repossessed vehicles. Often they are uncollectable - depends on the state.

breeze

 

It stinks to say the least. I'll show you why.
My Name
Address
City, St Zip

BigBank
PO Box 99999
City, St Zip
Attn: Suzy Banker


May 22, 2001 Certified Mail No.: _____________
There is absolutely no useful purpose for the above. They have the certified mail number on the letter they received put there by the post office.

Re: Your letter dated May 10, 2001: account no. 00000000

Dear Suzy Banker:

Thank you for your recent letter. This is notice that your claim is disputed.

If they can't figure out from your letter without telling them you are disputing, then they are too stupid to take any notice of the above as well. Believe me, such is never the case. They aren't stupid and so putting the above in does you no good whatever. Wasted space.


This is a request for validation of the above account, be advised that I am not requesting a "verification" that you have my name, social security number, and mailing address. I am requesting a "validation;" that is, competent evidence that I have some contractual obligation with you (eg. A signed contract). All you have done is verify that you have my information on file.

All of the above is also of no value. More wasted space. Just tell them they have violated federal law and let them figure out which federal law they have violated.

In the past I have had instances of fraudulent use of my credit info and mixed credit files. A signed contract would help me in pursuit of these fraudulent issues. I would prefer not to have to litigate, as I am already litigating with others. But I will if it becomes necessary.

They are not interested in your problems. They ae only interested in collecting a debt. The first sentence of the above is just fine, but that should be all you tell them.

I am currently applying for loans and this incorrect information is holding me up and causing me financial and emotional harmssment. Time is of the essence, I would like to try and get this fixed quickly.

Wrong! Again, they are not interested in your financial or emotional problems. In fact, giving them the above information simply tells them that you might be under some pressure and needing to get this settled at the earliest possible moment and maybe at any price as well. That is most assuredly not the information or kind of thoughts you would want to give them at any price.

This negative mark is damaging my credit. You have 30 days from receipt of this notice to respond with proof of this debt. Either provide the proof, or delete the records with the 3 credit reporting agencies.

Ahhh! And if they didn't already figured out that you must have some pressing problem on your mind and wanting to settle the above would confirm it for sure.


Your failure to respond, on point, in writing, hand signed, and in a timely manner, will work as a waiver to any and all of your claims in this matter, and will entitle me to presume that you reported this information in error, and that this matter is permanently closed.

In net effect, the above is the same thing as the estoppel letter published elsewhere. It is weak, ineffective and of no value whatsoever unless properly used in a separate letter in which case it becomes very powerful. But not because it has any legal validity, because it really does not. The estoppel letter is much better used as a tool to elicit a response from them when none is otherwise forthcomeing. That's about all it's any good for.

For the purposes of 15 USC 1692 et seq., this Notice has the same effect as a dispute to the validity of the alleged debt and a dispute to the validity of your claims.

You already said all of that above, so why chew your cabbage twice? Don't try to make yourself look like a lawyer at this stage of the game. It's a little premature yet to attempt that.

This Notice is an attempt to correct your records, and any information received from you will be collected as evidence should further action be necessary.

Oh Sure! Read them their Miranda Rights, while you are at it.


This is a request for information and/or correction of record only, and is not a statement, election, or waiver of status.

Well, I guess that's alright as far as it goes. But it just don't have any substance to it.

In my personal opinon, the whole thing is nothing more than folderal. You need to keep your letters as short as possible, give them as little information as possible and just get on the point, stay on the point and if you get off the point, get back on the point. None of the above does that. There are very valid reasons why you might want to appear to be some kind of clown in certain cercumstances in order to elicit a desired response, but you had better know why you are doing it otherwise, making yourself look silly has no valid purpose. While their clerks are probably somewhat less than brilliant law school students, they aren't stupid. If they get a letter like this, they may reply with scorn or they may take it over to their boss to see what he has to say about it. Either way, the results are not likely to be what you desire.

 

I think that they only time those long letters should be used is either when A) you really dont owe the debt or B) You know as a fact that they cant validate, and I mean for a fact! Under these circumstances they can be just the intimadation factor that would scare them into doing the what you want them to. Your best line if you actually owe and your not sure is to play it safe and not draw silly attention to yourself.

 

Marie,
I do like your tactics as far as using the FCRA and the FCDPA agianst the creditor. Pretty sly and could just do the trick if they didnt know any better!

 

Bill:

How about your version? Her's clearly doesn't pass muster w/ you, so let's see what's in your pocket?

no offense..just don't like people dissecting others w/ no proof of their worthiness.

 

Well, my version is to stay with the old KISS principle, keep it short and right on point.

I don't see that it makes much difference if you do attract attention to yourself. After all, if you were likely to get sued in court, then you will still end up getting sued anyway unless you were going to pay them off in which case you are just about as well off to just get started paying.
But if you aren't going to pay off, and you are very likely to get sued anyway, what's the point of stalling them and fiddling around? . I'd just about as soon get it done and get it over with and then we can get on with life and whatever comes next.

Now then, that's just like most anything else when it comes to personal opinion. I know what's going to come next and what I'm going to do next, but if "you" don't know what's going to come next or don't know what to do about the problem, then "you" may feel very differently about that.

Notice the generic "you".

So just like most things, everybody got his own little ranch. One often sees some of them ranchers sowing their wild oats and then going to church and praying for a crop failure.

 

Again, Bill, w/ all due respect, you've yet to provide your version (example) of how this letter should have been constructed.

Criticism, albeit opinionated, subjective and well intentioned, is invalid without proper proof of ascendancy.

 

Well, I think Lexington Law Firm gives pretty solid advice on that. I'm really impressed by those people. They give a lot of good sound advice to those seeking to do their own credit repair. And since I've never seen anything on their website that was hype, baloney or anything but what had the ring of solid truth, I have to take their advice when they state that the Credit Bureaus have people out on the message boards and buying all the latest books on credit repair in an attempt to keep up with all the latest trends in credit repair. Lexington says that they do that so they can spot all the credit repair "form lettets" and chunk those kind in the trash basket. Lexington says they don't dare post any form letters on their website because if they did, it would quickly become useless to anyone.

I have to respect those people and their opinions because of the honesty and integrity I have seen them display at all times.

Now then, I would not want to see my letters getting chunked because I was so dumb as not to follow the good advice of Lexington Law Firm.

I'm sure you can understand that.

 

Bill:

Your point is well taken. However, you, of all people, would be the first to state that none of this secrecy stuff matters anyway. It's all in how you pursue the prey.

Following this analogy, you have no problems telling others that their "hunting" tactics are way off mark, yet you provide no alternativeâ?¦at least none that donâ??t benefit your bank account.

1st Man: You're doing that all wrong!
2nd Man: Well, how should I do it then??
1st Man: Um, well, it should be a lot different that the way you're doing it now.
2nd Man: HOW SO??!?
1st Man: Well, I can't really tell you...but you could really be screwing it up.

 

Your situation is really pretty simple. So let's be blunt.

Either Equifax is lying about doing the investigation or
Your creditor is veryifying incorrect information.

Those are the only 2 scenarios. So you figure out which it is and attack it.

You send letters to the creditor (if there's an address to send them to anymore) because you need either a validation of the debt, or verification of the old date in your info.

You write letters to the CRA to get them to either tell you with WHOM they spoke with... or to remove/ reinvestigate the info.

Simple, really. Now as for leverage. To be blunt again, we all have very little. Yes, the letters huff and puff but they also quote valid points. And theory isn't going to help your credit file... letters will.

Now, If your debt "collection" as you call it is with a collection agency, validate w/them. Call them. Bug them. Be a pain in their assets. Take their time. Get it correct or sue them. Those are your only options.


If the reporting is supposedly directly from Mont Wards (which no longer exists) then I'd definitely make sure the CRAs tell me who they talked with... Casper the Friendly Ghost??????? Then it's definitely a CRA issue.

If after several letters that progressively make their way up the Equifax chain of command don't work... well, what are the options??? Honestly, AG and BBB don't make Equifax squirm. A lawsuit will get their attention. And they also know most of us are huff and puff and we won't sue them ever. Or so they think.

So the key is talking w/Equifax to find where the weak part in their investigation is: is it that they didn't verify and said they did or is it that they're talking w/a psychic to get your info???

And while you're talking and figuring out that Equifax is lying, you create a papertrail on both ends which will eventually go to Equifax as proof they either violated the FDRA or as proof that what they're reporting has truly been verified incorrectly.

My money is that Equifax is lying because: how is it they can accomplish a verification when the other CRAs can't???? Typical Equifax b/s.

So pressure them w/their lies or live with it. But if they've reaged the account for you then their lie is going to hurt your husband for another 7 years. Is that fair??? NOPE. So it's up to you to correct it. As for your husband's involvement, well that's up to you to get him on the phone. You can write letters for him but you can't literally speak for him. Perhaps you could get a power of atty that specifically states you may speak for him on his behalf in regards to his Equifax file, Fax it and mail it to Equifax... but I'm guessing unless you send it directly to a supervisor it won't help you discuss this w/them.

Any chance it occasionally pops up on your file (or a joint file) where you could address its removal tooo??? just a thought.

Well, I'm out of advice. Go get them or live w/it. Your choice. Good luck