Background: I had mailed TU copies of BK and discharge back in March, before I knew better, because tradelines for Beall's and Dillard's were both showing as a chargeoff, rather than included in 13BK. Also, Beall's was showing as balance of $185 , which obviously could not be correct for a creditor included in Schedule F on the BK13. Both were updated within 30 days to show included in BK, zero balance. May and June pulls of the CR show correct info. And I resigned myself to thinking I would just have to live with this until spring of 2003 when the BK is due to fall off. Well, when I looked at TU True FICO Score & CR last week, they are both back, inaccurately reported, just like they were in March. So I disputed online to TU and told them included in BK, they already have all supporting documentation and either get them 100% accurate or delete. Received letter in mail today from TU advising that they will reinvestigate, but only if I send supporting documentation on BK, Schedule F, and discharge. Absolutely livid, I called TU in Fullerton CA. Got a rep who said that the letters were auto generated, didn't really mean much, that the letter was triggered by use of "BK" anywhere in dispute. I advised that I wasn't putting anything else in mail, she said I didn't have to, items were under investigation, and didn't need any additional documentation from me for the dispute to proceed. Now, here is the kicker>>> I said I was really upset about the OC updating the tradeline with inaccurate information, and having to start this dispute all over again within a four month period of time. She said if the OC creditor was reporting inaccurately, I should write to the Attorney General in my state and file a complaint against the OC. She said they were doing their part by reinvestigating, but I should write the AG for Texas if I was not happy with the accuracy of the tape provided by the OC to TU. HMMMMM??? why are they doing that? does TU think that will let them off the hook? To deal with this once and for all, I am considering a modified Nutcase letter to Beall's (and to Dillard's)advising that they are in violation of the FCRA by repeatedly reporting inaccurate information and they must either correct the information or delete or be prepared to pay me $$$$ for their violations. I won't give them any information other than the account number and my social security # (that's okay, right? or should I just give them my social? ). I know I want them to think it will be better to delete rather than trying to figure it out without pulling a hard inquiry, correct? Surely they will realize that they have no permissable purpose for an inquiry to verify what might be inaccurate >>> Both accounts were successfully discharged in December of 2000 and a hard inquiry on any of the CR's would be a violation. These two tradelines are both reporting to each of the three CRA's. Any downside to trying this approach?
