Re: Development She may be waiting on you to call her or she got busy or something. I wouldn't worry much about it. Just keep on movin forward.
Re: Problem! I just checked EX and my current good Citi account now reports as: NO STATUS with a comment: account in dispute - FCRA! What a mess! They were probably looking for the account (Associates National Bank) and could not find anything except my current good account - so they marked it. Or if you sue, do they mark EVERY account you have with them? It is possible that, Associates (Citi) in DE erased this account before Citi S.D. got their hands on my file and could only find Citi account (which by the way is in perfect standing). What to do now? Should I call her and explain? Should I ignore and then hit them with the facts or what? Thanks! Boy, what a mess that Citibank is!
Re: Problem! I would immediately dispute the dispute with the credit bureau and I would include a 100 word statement which they must print and in it I would state simply "This is a false report. I have no dispute whatever with Citibank. Such false reporting as this damages consumers and defrauds those who pay good money to get accurate information about potential new customers." Then I would give the credit bureaus the option of deleting the dispute notation or printing your statement. Their choice. Guess what they will be most likely to do? This is an old trick I invented a long time ago and it's use should be strictly limited to very specific situations and not thrown about willy nilly like some magic new bullet. This is the first time I have seen any instance where it could be used in over two years now and I have run into thousands of listings since then. When I say "thousands of listings" I don't mean it as in thousands of people but rather in an untold number of people each of whom may have had any where from say 1 to maybe 60 listings each. Big difference. It usually is. Could be. Who did you sue.? I would not hazard a guess. I would not call anybody. If they goofed it up and you call them they will be most likely to goof it up some more. I would do it the way I suggested above and if the credit bureau gets stupid enough to print it then they would also be casting severe doubt on any other adverse report they might put on you in future or even on any bad ones you have now. You can bet they won't print anything that makes them look bad and distribute it to anybody who might have made inquiry during the last 6 months. Be sure to demand that if they choose to print rather than delete the dispute remark they have to distribute it to anybody who might have inquired as to your credit history during the last 6 months. That will make the cheese even more binding for them. I've only had the chance to use it one time and they never printed it but that listing sure was gone in a hurry. So don't anybody who reads this post start jumping up and down with joy because the trick probably won't fit your situation. If you attempt to use it in any case in which it should not have been used you will simply ruin the trick for everybody else and probably shoot yourself in the foot doing it. It's a cute little trick but don't abuse it. I've got a whole bag full of little tricks like that and they all go towards making what I do and what I teach the only method there is in existance today gets the job done most of the time instead of just some of the time. So use this one with caution. It only works in rare situations and will probably blow up in your face if you use it incorrectly.
Re: Problem! I appreciate your comment Bill. One thing. Seems like it happens to everyone sometimes (including myself) but we tend to not FULLY read peoples questions and reply with all the information based on misunderstood question. I sued CITIBANK (Associates National Bank is now owned by Citibank S.D.) and have dispute with them but on a different account which as I stated above was already DELETED. I'm kind of afraid that they put it back once I explain that my current Citi account (not ANB) is not the one I'm suing for. Does that change your reply then? If not, sorry for my misunderstanding.
Re: Problem! Maybe, maybe not. It will work ONLY if the account in question is listed as being for ANB and your suit did not name Citibank in any way. To use the trick the item one claims is wrong must be in error in some meaningful way and somebody (preferably the credit bureau) must be in error somehow. Furthermore, they must be in error in some really meaningful way, not just because the amount or the date or some nit picking little way that don't really mean a hill of beans in the first place. If people start to use the trick for whatever stupid little reason they can dream up for whatever little thing it will soon be rendered useless and nobody will be able to use it. Another thing that could happen is that if one uses it wrongly the credit bureaus may very well just "cloak" one's account and nobody can pull the report so now the person who thought they had such a slick trick could end up looking like they had no credit at all. That is precisely the reason I leave them the option of not printing the 100 words or less statement. That way they have a way to comply and avoid the sting of bad mouthing themselves. If you force them to print it they will because you could sue them if they didn't but you would probably be the only one who could ever see the report until the law allowed them to take it off. Probably 10 years. That is another reason why the trick is potentially dangerous. It can hurt you if you mess it up. So you are going to have to be the one to decide if there is genuine error and in this case it seems to me that the listing would have to be one that was put there by ANB and Citi is not mentioned at all in that listing. ANB can't take it off and ANB can't defend. Citi can't really do much about it either because they didn't put it there. If ANB put the listing there then ANB is the only one who could have put the dispute notation on the listing. Citi may think they can and if the credit bureau lets them do it they can get away with it but I don't think they can do so if it were challenged as a legal question before a court of law. But then I doubt anybody wants to go to court just to find out either. So you know what the report says, who put it there and all of the intimate details therefore you have to be the one to decide if the trick will work in your case or not. It seemed to me that it would or I would not have put it out for you to use. But as you say, I very well may have misunderstood or whatever.
Re: Problem! Yes, it DID. There is no Associates National Bank anymore, but they still have the offices there with probably the same people and same data. And yes, I think Associates people DELETED the account because they (as Citibank now) acquired the account along with the ANB. Actually, it may be a good idea to do what you said, but it is TOO complicated. All I need to do is direct them to the right account (old ANB account) which they are now RESPONSIBLE for. When you purchase or acquire a business, you also (usually) take the business with its liabilities, customers, legal problems, etc. and the last time I spoke to Citibank they stated it exactly the same way.
Re: Problem! I spoke to the lady and she is still waiting for ANB info to come and has proposed a settlement. I think I may have TOO fast agreed to it but asked her to send any proposal via overnight letter, with true notarized signature. I said, I would take that under consideration. She said, that's what she would like: for me to consider the settlement. She will call me later on today or tomorrow. Also, she agreed to remove the note "under FCRA dispute" from my current Citibank account. I'll let you know guys how it turns out.
Re: Problem! Okay, as stated in above post, she told me she will call me later on in the day or tomorrow (meaning this past Tuesday) as soon as she gets the documents about the Associates NB account and then decide what the settlement offer will be or if there will be any. I have not heard from her since then. I also asked her to remove the notation NO STATUS from my Citi account (which has nothing to do with the suit) and this has not been done either. The notation is on EX only, but it still bothers me (you know us CR's). They still have until 22nd of March to reply back to the court (I checked yesterday and they still have not) or I get the default. Has it happened to anybody before that the defendant has not replied back to court? I'm thinking, either they have problems getting the docs (well, they deleted my account already - Associates people from DE) or they think I do not have anything on them, because the account shows late pays - LOL!
Re: Problem! Ok, so the time is coming. I posted that it was 22nd of this months for Citibank to respond back to court but it is actually 26th. By the way, they still have not. They called me today and said that the account was deleted and that I filed a law suit after it was deleted so it seems to her that I need some compensation for my trouble and she offered me $500 and letter finalizing that the account will never appear back on my report. I said I would take it under advisement and call her back tomorrow (25th). She also kept asking me what FCRA laws they violated. I said they should know as they have been violating it for almost 2 years and I would be unable to tell them ovet the phone, and if they would like to find out I will meet them in court. What is your advice? Should I call her back and settle only for at least half of originall law suit which is $5000 or should I accept it and forget about it? I asked her to send me a proposal but she said it would not make any sense for her to do that if I wasn't going to accept it. What should be my next step? They must respond back to court on Wendesday so should I trick them and get default judgment? Thanks for any advice.
Re: Problem! You handled it like a pro. I told you they would pull out the bag of tricks and try to "get a feel" for your case. Sit tight. They WILL call back and bump up the offer. A default judgement would be cake!
Re: Problem! So I should not call her tomorrow right? or should I call and deny the offer? Also, if I do not call by tomorrow they may send overnight to the court and thus respond. If they won't I get default. Can they appeal or is it a case closed?
Re: Re: Re: Small Claims Court - wrong court? Was reading your post, nodding my head to most of it, and have to comment that your analogy to the 7 astronauts is misplaced. The astronauts did not get killed because they lacked knowledge. All of the knowledge in the world would not have saved them after that shuttle blew up. wtf?
Re: Re: Re: Small Claims Court - wrong court? One NASA commentator said that had they known how badly the shuttle was damaged before re-entry was attempted we might not have lost them. We had other options. The Russians had the capability to go after them had they known the extent of the damage before they attempted to re-enter. Once the decent was started all the knowledge in the world could not have saved them.
Re: Re: Re: Small Claims Court - wrong court? Just got an overnight copy of the answer Citibank provided to the court (one day before the due date) saying that they deny they are responsible at all. It says: Defendand's records reflect that it accurately reported account to the credit bureaus. LOL! What now? Ignore or call and deny the settlement?
Re: Re: Re: Small Claims Court - wrong court? Ignore them. They will call you back with another offer for settlement before the court date. Since you wouldn't give them any specifics on the nature of the violations, they chose the stupid "we didn't do anything" defense. Very few 4 y/o children get away with the "I didn't do it" excuse when they have misbehaved; Citibank is no exception. If this does go to court--rest assured this may be the easiest win you ever have.
Re: Re: Re: Small Claims Court - wrong court? Thanks for your reply. I kind of said I would call her next day with the answer. Do you think I should do it and just say I could not accept the offer and will see them in court?
