Sassy: Sullivan ;-)

Sassy:

Remember the ITS on my non-physical check question ;-)

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60253

Well, if they choose to not accept the financial portion of the settlement offer (and I can figure out how to afford filing fees, and a lawyer competent enough to take a case which will set a firm precident without mistakes... ;-) -- and I even did all the work.)

Their lawyer had the gull to say that it would be AMICABLE to just delete the account which would be obsolete in July anyhow, to prevent any future issues (fine, that resolves future issues, but it doesn't turn back time) ;-)

Since I now have a case which can resolve the issues of BOTH credit reporting as initial communication, and credit reporting as communication post C&D... ;-p And just luckily being local to the E.D.PA it'ld go to the same court which set Sullivan to EXPAND Sullivan to those two issues.

Anyhow, after they received (both directly, and at their registered agent) a C&D / ITS, the trade line remained for almost a month, when I was denied based on all three reports, I ordered a copy of all three reports, and got a hard copy of EX with their trade line on it, post-C&D. The original report I received was 'flawed' (didn't show any trade lines, just creditor's statements which were the first 4 characters of the data furnisher's city name, so I pulled up a dispute report, and brought up the trade line that way as well. ;-)

So there are two post-C&D "communications" as defined by Sullivan, and I have proof that their computer records are flawed at least as far as their claims to have been on my credit files since 1998, (and possibly the remainder of their files can be discredited as well) (and since the "new" company wasn't created until 2002, have a secondary arguement that any alleged "communications" in 1998 weren't from them, I will be arguing that the June posting on my credit report was initial communications, along with the failure to provide 809 rights notice, failure and REFUSAL to validate, and failure to cease collection activity.

 

No information was ever provided except for the one letter that I had to pry out of their cold dead hands by sicing the BBB on them, and that only contained the minimalist amount of information possible, not even enough for a Chaudry claim. ;-)

I just sent out a 2 page settlement offer letter, and a 1 page settlement agreement. With copies of all of the communications which I had sent to his client previously, demonstrating that they had more than enough opportunities to amicably delete the account.

* $3,000 certified or cashier's check
* $10,000 confession of judgement if the check is in any way dishonored (or they attempt to attack the account which it is deposited in whole or in part); the account is ever sold, transferred, or assigned; or if they in any way shape or form attempt to resume collection activity.

The best part was when I sent them a PCM letter, they updated the 'credit limit' of the account to a number in the 100 dollar range (keeping the current balance in the 300 dollar range), BUT STILL didn't notate that the account was in dispute.

So there is no way that they can argue that they didn't UPDATE the account since June, when the July tradeline is completely different than the November tradeline, and they *STILL* refused to notate that the account is disputed.

I think they forgot about pleading the fifth... ;-) Self-incrimination is such a b****.

 

The fun will be trying to nit-pic every possible violation if they decide to not settle.

I hinted in my settlement offer that the $10,000 of violations in the ITS were only the tip of the iceberg, and made sure to point out just *ONE* of the false and misleading representations in the companies only written response to me.

The real fun will be phrasing everything to ensure that I decimate any hopes of any of their company names being able to claim the OC exemption.