Well, I am at the end of my rope for a paid CO with a CC company. They have verified it twice with one CRA. The other two CRA's have been deleted. I have a procedural request pending right now with the verified CRA, but am looking for an alternative if the CRA responds to the procedural request unfavarably. The Nutcase theory is looking like my only hope if the chargeoff comes back with the procedural request info. I know this CRA will not allow me to dispute again without any new paperwork, or at least without a hassle. BUT>>> I am afraid the CC company might punish me for unleashing the nutcase series on them and go out of their to put the account back on the other two CRA's that have deleted. Has this ever happened to someone? Do you think Providian would do that??? Any advice would be appreciated.....
Even if they did place this account back on the two CRA's that deleted, remember, the CRA is required to notify you within 5 days of reinsertation of the account. It it highly unlikely that either CRA will comply with this, and you, in turn, can then force the CRA to delete since they did not comply with the FCRA.
It all depends on when the charge-off will fall off naturally. If you have more than 18 months before it goes away, than it's probably worth it to use all means necessary to fight it off. On the other hand, it's not worth risking getting it back on your other reports if it's due to fall off shortly. I had a problem like that with First USA- fought them off 2 reports, got greedy and went for the third and they re-updated all 3 with negatives! Now I am just going to wait it out a 11 months. Old negatives arent a big deal in my situation.
Well, a CA did that to us. We sent the nutcase letter in January and they immediately deleted from EQ. (The only place they appeared.) About a month later they pulled an AR inq on EQ. A couple of weeks later the accounts appeared on TU and we haven't gotten rid of them yet. We disputed twice with TU and sent 2nd nutcase letter to CA. Finally we sent intent to sue. CA called and asked if we were really going to sue. We said yes. He said "well, do what you have to do." We have filed in small claims court for $7500 for violations of FDCPA, FCRA, loss of opportunity and defamation. Our magistrate knows virtually nothing about FDCPA and FCRA so this is going to be a challenge, but we do expect we'll prevail on at least some of the counts. We're faxing a settlement letter to the CA along with the lawsuit. Bottom line, make sure you're documenting violations, because you never know how far you'll have to go to get rid of a paid collection. Also, be sure to apply and be declined so you can prove you have actual damages. (I believe somewhere in all these piles of documentation we're dealing with now there was something that indicated if you don't have actual damages, you don't have standing to sue.) (By the way, ours were for a total of $178 and have been paid for 2 years. The actions of the CA have been purely punitive and harrassing.) I guess we ticked them off. Oh well. All the best! DemPooches
Thanks for the replies. The account is scheduled to fall off in 01/2006. So I think it is worth the risk of reinsertion on the other two cra's to get it off Exp. That is a good point Mindcrime, I do take some reassurance that even if the account is reinserted on the other two CRA's, that the two cra's will probably mess up and not notify me within 5 days of the reinsertion and I will be able to get the account deleted. I just pray that EXP ignores the procedural request. Otherwise I am going to have to let the nutcase loose. Good luck on your suit against the CA Dempooches.
I have a question on the topic of "reinsertion". Let's say you pull a report from CRB#1, ask for deletion and it goes away. Now for the first time ever, you pull reports from CRB#2 and CRB#3 three months later and find the same item that was originally deleted from CRB#1, reinserted with new dates after the original deletion, in the reports of CRB#2 and CRB#3 that you get. CRB #2 and CRB#3 would never have contacted you originally when they inserted those new entries in your report. So how would the 5 Day rule for reinsertion apply in this case and how would you contest it.
About a month later they pulled an AR inq on EQ. DemPooches This is a violation OF permissible purpose is it not? No account = no reason to pull !!
QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnOG CRB #2 and CRB#3 would never have contacted you originally when they inserted those new entries in your report. So how would the 5 Day rule for reinsertion apply in this case and how would you contest it. =============================== 1* How would you know it was reserted when you had never seen the reports before??
lb, That's the premise we're working under for the lawsuit. I can't imagine how they could prevail on that count, but we'll see what happens. DemPooches
