Checked DH EXP....up 1 POINT.... WOW.... Enough of the excitement....he had paid CA(B4 this board) for a Jewelry acct (scheduled to fall of next year...BTW amazing they did not re-set the clock!) Anyway.... EXP deleted original creditor (that's what gave him the 1 point) but the CA updated as "paid" They were incorrectly reporting CR as unpaid collection since August 01....now that they have updated, have I lost leverage for them reporting incorrectly all this time if I were to file suit??? (hubby got car loan w/ higher interest rate) Also, I think it's time to send Nutcase letter to them, since they are verifying as paid collection........... Any thoughts???
If the account is in fact paid, then I'd go nutcase on 'em. As for leverage, if you incurred damages during the time they were incorrectly reporting, then you still retain a great edge. As a matter of fact, their updating the item to paid constitutes prima facie admission that they had made a terrible mistake for all of those months or years. You've got 'em on a clear FDCPA violation. If it was mine, I would combine the first two paragraphs of the nutcase letter and then customize it into something like this: I am formally requesting that you validate all tradeline notations you have submitted to the three major credit reporting agencies by â??NAME OF COLLECTION AGENCYâ? for me, YOUR NAME, for account number XXXXXXXXX. After many months of incorrectly reporting the account as unpaid, you finally admitted violating the Federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and updated the item. Regardless, due to possible continued inaccuracies in these CRA reports, I must demand that the validation I hereby lawfully request be in the form of a notarized statement by a person with original knowledge of the debt as it was constituted and who can testify that the debt was incurred legally, was not subsequently disputed as a result of returned, faulty, or recalled consumer products, was not utilized as a profit-loss tax deduction during the period it may have been payable, and was not claimed as a loss with any insuring entity during the period it may have been payable. Please be advised that I am not requesting a verification that you have my mailing address; rather, I am requesting validation, i.e., competent evidence that I had some contractual obligation sans consumer protection encumbrance which incurred the original claims associated with this tradeline. This will blow their minds. Basically you're nailing them directly with the FDCPA violation and then suggesting that there may be other problems and following up with a list of irritating lawful requests. It's likely that they will look at this and think, "Holy Jeezies, we admitted we did wrong, and now we may be in other hot water. She doesn't owe us a dime. Let's get rid of this nutcase." The best part of this is that you've actually got them on a FDCPA violation. In that respect, this is far stronger than the usual nutcase tactic. Good going! Doc
