I have a repo that is being reported inaccurately the closed date is 2/1998 and status as of 2/1998 repossesion. Now I know for a fact that the car was repoed 11/97. How do I dispute this so that the entire tradeline is deleted instead of updated to reflect the correct repo date. Please Advise.. I'm desperate.
What state are you in, where did it happen, where is the bank located (if HQ is different from your current state/where the repo happened) The questions are posted so I can look up the state laws regarding credit reporting. If it is Texas, it states corection, no deletion unless unverifiable. Ed
erosado: I am in New York State now. However the car was purchased and repoed when I lived in Maryland. The Creditor DaimlerChrysler is located in Michigan.
Robin- Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you just state in the "Devious Idea" post, that it is morally wrong to have items removed from your report, that truely belong to you. If that's the case, then shouldn't you shoot for just changing the repo date and not get the entire tradeline deleted?
KHM: You are in fact wrong. I specifically stated that I will refrain from judging the young man's (insane idea) simply because there are those who would disagree with the morality and legality of what is discussed on this board. I never said that I disagreed in fact I said that I appreciate the info that is routinely discussed here and my freedom to use that information to restore my credit. I am sorry you misunderstood.
Can someone please help me with these questions? Also, do you need to wait until after the deadline of the estoppel letter to begin disputing with credit reporting agencies?
It is truly unbelievable that with all the successes I read about on this board every day, not one person is willing to take a stab at this question. I really do need you help on this one and I know somebody out there must have an answer. Please Please Please help. I appreciate anything you can do for me. thnx
I am looking at the laws in NY and Maryland, but I have many other states like Georgia and Illinois i turn. I should have some answers for all of you today. Let me kept looking and there may be some answers to help you. ed
Robin, A friend had a repo with Chrysler and they disputed it with all three CRAs and it came off with ease. I think they're a huge corporation that does not have the time or patience to deal with 'petty' issues. They just want their money. I say, just go ahead and dispute it, I believe it will come off on the first try (or second, if need be).
Thanks very much for the info. Just one question your friend that disputed with the cra's did they send the nustcase letter to chrysler first or did they just go straight to the dispute with the cra's. Also do you think I should send the nutcase letter before disputing with the cra's or should I send it if the cra dispute comes back verified.
She went straight for the CRAs. Never contacted Chrysler. Although, she did dispute the debt with Chrysler beforehand ie why are you suing me...if I didnt have the monthly payments then WTH makes you think I have a huge lump sum now???? I guess that was her nutcase letter! LOL. As far as the situation of it possibly coming back verified, I am not sure. Have they gotten a judgment against you?
No they have no judgement because it's a paid repo. That is why I wonder if it would come back verified because I did pay it and the tradeline reads: Settled less than full balance.
More than likely it will not be verified. DaimerChrysler has bigger fish to fry than to worry about keeping an old account on your report that has since been paid. Remember: their motivation for reporting to the credit bureaus is to get you to pay. If you have already paid, there is no reason to report, much less verify. GO FOR IT!!! BTW, how long ago was the repo? How long ago did you finish paying them? Chances are if you dispute it as paid as agreed/never repoed/never late, etc., the CRA will either leave the account in your credit file but delete such notations or delete the entire account (which is most likely). If you dispute it as not mine, of course the entire account comes off. If you can keep the account but remove the late notations, that would be in your best interest. You would get the benefit of upgrading a bad tradeline to a good one. Plus the good one would have some age on it (I assume). If your moral conscience can handle this---Just joking Just my 2 cents, the opinion is free...
Love, So you think it is better for me to dispute as never repoed and chances are they will simply take the repo off and leave it as a good account? Wouldn't that be harder to dispute if it comes back verified. How would I word such a dispute simply? If I dispute as not mine or no knowledge of any such account that would likely get the entire tradeline deleted, but that might be a safer option (in case they verify) do you agree? Also the credit report says repoed in 2/98 however it was really repoed 11/97.
Also this is a little more difficult because their is also a civil suit showing on my credit report dating back to 8/98 from Daimler Chrysler. This would probably strengthen the cra's desire to not delete much less to accept a dispute of never repoed. I guess I can still try the not mine angle but I'm not sure if even that door is open to me. I feel like this process is too much for me. I wish I could enjoy the successes of the rest of the members of this board but I am afraid that my credit is too far gone. Thnx for giving me a moment on the soapbox.
Don't be too sure of that, hubby had a car loan with them and his exwife made a few late pays and they verify every single time!!! He has tried "not mine" never late, belongs to ex, the goddwill adjustment letter, the nutcase letter EVERYTHING. And this loan has been paid in full, not repo'd just a couple 30 days late. He called and they said "if we do it for you we have to do it for everyone:". So if it's Chrysler, don't be surprised if they verify.
Robin, there may be a way to get that repo deleted from your credit reports, but it's a bit tougher than solely disputing it (with either the creditor or the CRA). If you find yourself logging FCRA violations against the CRAs, and then if you subsequently file small claims lawsuits against the CRAs, you can fold in this technically incorrect item into your settlement talks. That may work. In my successful suits, I folded in a couple of "weak case" items alongside my stronger violations; I settled for tradeline deletions rather than cash, so the CRAs were (in my opinion) more willing to entertain the deletions than they perhaps would have if I had been asking for cash (during the settlement phase) as well. Hope this helps. Doc
Doc. Sorry I didn't reply to you sooner. This does help a tremendous deal. However, if I send the nutcase letter and they do not mark in dispute (violation) how can I use this in court seeing as though it would not constitute further collection activity because the account is paid and there is no collection activity on the account?
