Someday I'll remove the parentheses ... ========================================================= CASE 01: DISPUTING "CLOSED BY GRANTOR" ========================================================= ------------------------- The Letter: ------------------------- [color=0066FF]This letter is a formal complaint that you are reporting inaccurate credit information - your remarks on the account above read "ACCOUNT CLOSED BY CREDIT GRANTOR". The account is under [OC]'s Credit Protection Plan because of unemployment. Its benefits will remain active, for as long as involuntary unemployment continues, up to a maximum period of 24 months. I, myself, have requested to be enrolled in this plan and I, myself have activated the plan. According to [OC]'s rules the account stays closed and cannot be used until the activation period is being extended. Therefore, the accurate remarks should read "ACCOUNT CLOSED BY CONSUMER" or there should be no remark. Please modify your remarks about the above account as per my request.[/color] ------------------------- The Catch: ------------------------- This is an account with $15K LOC and $15K balance. If I get them to delete it, the FICO will go high ... ------------------------- The Story: ------------------------- 10/20/03 My first dispute letters flew to the CRAs 10/24/03 Got the GCs back. 10/29/03 EQ changed "Closed by grantor" to "N/A" EQ FICO went [-14] 11/05/03 EQ changed "N/A" back to "Closed by grantor" :-( EQ FICO went [+11] ??? 11/08/03 Got my the letter from EQ: "[color=0066FF]Equifax verified that this item belongs to you. Equifax has verified that this item has been reported correctly. If you have documents that release you from this obligation, please forward a copy to us.[/color]" No response from EX or TU yet. No "notice of dispute" from EX or TU yet. To continue ...
"I NEVER SAID THE ACCOUNT IS NOT MINE--I SAID IT NEEDS TO REPORT 'ACCOUNT CLOSED BY CONSUMER' OR SAY NOTHING"
Re: Re: The War Is (w)on I know, George ... There will be a second round. I'm just waiting to see what EX and TU will do ...
========================================================= CASE 01: DISPUTING "CLOSED BY GRANTOR" [continued] ========================================================= 11/08/03 · Got my CR from EX: "[color=0066FF]Your Statement: "Item disputed by consumer". Creditor's statement: "Account closed at credit grantor's request". The item was verified and updated on 11-2003.[/color]" · Even if they said "Item disputed by consumer" there is no notice of dispute on my PG and MyFICO reports. 11/11/03 · Got my CR from TU: "[color=0066FF]We have completed our reinvestigation ... your updated credit information follows ... ACCT CLOSED BY CREDIT GRANTOR[/color]" · No notice of dispute. 11/11/03 · Sent a letter to the OC asking to confitm CRA's verification and to update the account to "CLOSED BY GRANTOR AT CONSUMER'S REQUEST". To be continued ...
========================================================= CASE 02: DISPUTING DIFFERENTLY REPORTED INFORMATION BY THE CRA ========================================================= 11/19/03 I just realized that as of Nov 11, 2003 they had raised my Purchases and Advances APR from 19.90% to 27.99%. I also realized that as of Nov 11, 2003 Chase had likewise raised my Purchases APR from 15.99% to 23.99% and my Cash APR from 19.99% to 23.99%. Both Chase and Citibank CSRs told me that a CRA (Experian/TransUnion) reported that as of Nov 5, 2003 I had 2 delinquent accounts with other creditors and this triggered my APR increase. I have never had any delinquencies with any creditor, and the scariest part is that I have no delinquencies in any of my reports as of: 11/08/03 (PG/EX/EQ/TU), 11/17/03 (EQ), and 11/20/03 (PG). Could that be what I've been wondering lately - that CRA gives one type of report to us and a different one to the lenders? 11/20/03 Sent letters to Citibank and Chase to ask for an investigation. I had to include a copy of my report (25 pages) as a proof that I don't have any delinquent accounts. BTW, as a base for the letters I used Dixie's "CYA Manipulation Letter" ... To be continued ...
GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT CHASE did that to me...NOT AS BAD...BUT THEY STILL "JACKED" ME!!! 30 DAY LATE...THEIR MISTAKE...they fixed their computer...BUT I had to close my account and I was also denied a second account because of it!!!
Re: Re: The War Is (w)on George, you miss the point ... this is not a mistake made by the OC. It's possible that the CRAs are giving different information to us and to the OCs, which triggers the OCs actions to increase the APR. Guess what would happen if I get a proof from the OC that the CRA has given them a negative info about me, but have sent me tottaly clean reports ...
Re: Re: Re: The War Is (w)on YOU MISS MY POINT Your other credit card companies JACKED YOU because of BOGUS INFORMATION... GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT
YOU MISS MY POINT Your other credit card companies JACKED YOU because of * BOGUS INFORMATION... GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT GEORGE~~A.K.A. RODNEY DANGERFIELD =========================== *Credit Reports and FICO are BOGUS
The scary part is that a creditor may make a decision based on a report containing information which you have no idea about, even if you pull your report every day. Because the CRA may have given different reports to you and to the creditor. Not just that, the CRA is given them inaccurate negative information about your credit. I had to (1)get my monthly statement, (2)notice that the APR has been raised, and (3)call the OC to find out the reason. Now I have to start the game with the OC and CRA to clear it up. The worst part is that I cannot dispute anything with the CRA, if I don't have the proof from the OC, because there is nothing to dispute in the report I have, and, the OC is not obligated to give me any proof. That's scary ...
The OC is obligated to give you some information when jacking your APR based on your credit report. In particular they must notify you. Read Sec. 615 of the FCRA.
Thanks, jlynn ... I am aware of that, but I wanted to be soft first and not mention their violation, because at this moment I'm more interested in getting from them the proof that the CRA has given them a different report from the report I pay to see myself ...
Yo Vlad, Got yer em. I got rather po'd just today. I bought a car and the OC refused to show me my report(s). They actually told me that according to the "US Patriot Act" it's ... ahem ... "ILLEGAL" ... "for us to show you your report. This is our procedure." There's no secret that the CRA's do NOT want Data Users (DU's) to show us our own reports. In fact they put that in their contracts, which is the real reason they didn't wanna show me. (But that doesn't mean "illegal"). Anyway - we have talked about this issue at length before. Before you got here one of our posters is a well known consumer protection atty., named David Szwak. Marie started a thread entitled; "My copy NOT like creditors' copy" . There you'll find the "actionable" part of this problem. It's a little tricky. BTW - I took Dixies "CYA Letter" and added a few things to it, case law and statutes, etc.. It's at "Guerilla Tactic" Let me know. .
Wouldn't this apply? [color=0066FF]§ 607. Compliance procedures [15 U.S.C. § 1681e] (c) Disclosure of consumer reports by users allowed. A consumer reporting agency may not prohibit a user of a consumer report furnished by the agency on a consumer from disclosing the contents of the report to the consumer, if adverse action against the consumer has been taken by the user based in whole or in part on the report.[/color] Nice thread ... I've seen several threads here about the same thing - different information given to the lenders and to the consumers. I have seen no case about it so far. I'd say it's about time ... Already contacted David asking if he would consult me on this, so we'll see ... I like it. Says the same thing, but has better wording than my version, so I updated my version. I didn't include any law quotes though. IMO, in a letter like this it's better not to educate them how the CRA could violate my or their rights. Yes, indeed. Reading so many posts about the same problem, I see a difference between them and my (eventual) case. The difference is that they did find out about the problem when it was too late to get enough proof to start a case. I've been lucky reading this board for a month a half, so I've learned how to document everything and there is a chance I could gather all evidence I need. Besides, I've learned about Dixie's "Guerilla Tactics" right on time. So I use her letter first - if I get the proof, good. If not - I've got two banks in a clean FCRA violation - taking an adverse action based on my credit info without sending me a notice of the adverse action. So I'll use this to get the proof. Once I get the proof ... well, I'll need a good lawyer, so we can later quote this case ... 'Cause I'm damn serious about it ...
I've always been a little concerned about 607. It seems to suggest that balh, blah, blah if negative action is taken. I haven't been in a negative action situation for a good while now. I'm gonna show it to them tomorrow and pretend there's no distinction. Maries thread was vauable in a lot of ways. One thing that stuck out was how Szwak demonstrated how to build your case. Namely, pull your consumer report on the same day (hopefully rather close to the same time too) as the DU. That way they can't come back and say "yeah but we updated that night". lol Anytime I have a DU pull my report (a subscriber report), I also have the Foxy Mrs. Butch at home pulling a consumer report. THEY DAMN WELL BETTER BE THE SAME. .
Re: Re: The War Is (w)on They told me the CRA reported to them the derogs on 11/05/03. I've got the following reports: 11/06/03 - TU, paper 11/08/03 - TU, MyFico 11/08/03 - EQ, MyFico 11/17/03 - EQ, online 11/08/03 - EX, MyFico 11/08/03 - 3-1, PG 11/20/03 - 3-1, PG Plus, I have all my original statements from all my creditors for the last four years ... there isn't one single derog ... Plus, I am expecting any day now a separate paper report from TU, EX, and EQ, which I requested because of a CC denial. Can't wait to see David's opinion on this ...
vghost, The problem is you're creating a fire on speculative maybes, you have no idea what the CRA did or didn't do, because you are microscoping the CRA's INSTEAD of the OC's who are the ones required to disclose to you the source of the information THEY based their decision on. That didn't happen so you're just spinning your wheels guessing. Sassy
Butch, I just clicked on some link in this thread that took me to here: http://www.awesomecredit.com/cnsidebar/dixiescya.htm What is that site and it's purpose, obviously it is meant to belong to you or look like it, and more importantly, do you think you slapped a copyright on Dixie's letter (who is a HE, btw) and are now claiming it as your own, as it suggests???? Adding these two threads for reference as they are both related to this thread specifically and dixie's letter specifically: by vghost, CYA Manipulation Letter (Revised)http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?threadid=53876 and by vghost, Ain't that scary http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?threadid=53919 All of a sudden some things are getting to be crystal clear. Amazing!!!!!! Sassy
Re: Re: The War Is (w)on This is not entirely accurate, Sassy. Both OCs told me on the phone their action was based on a negative information reported by the CRA. In addition, after my phone conversation with Chase, they sent me a letter stating that "[color=0066FF]the annual percentage rate on your account increased based on information received from Experian Credit Agency indicating a recent delinquency is recorded on your credit bureau report[/color]". I don't think that's enough though, so I sent them letters requesting a detailed information about what was received by them from the CRAs. There have been many people complaining about differencies in their reports, so if I can get the CRAs this way, why shouldn't I ...
