Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by popnsan, Feb 19, 2001.
Barclaycard Arrival Plus® Credit Card
Earn 40,000 bonus miles after spending $3,000 in the first 90 days; that’s equivalent to a $400 statement credit!
CREDIT CARD WITH BONUS OFFERBarclaycard Arrival Plus
Credit One Bank®Cash Back Rewards
Credit card for people with bad credit! 0% intro *APR for 15 months on balance transfers. $0 intro balance transfer fee for transfers made in first 60 days.
BAD CREDIT CREDIT CARDCredit One Bank® Cash Back
Barclaycard Arrival Plus®
2X miles on each and every purchase. 5% miles back with each redemption!
primor® Secured VisaClassic Card
Credit lines available up to $5,000! Reports to three national credit bureaus; perfect card for reestablishing credit. Guaranteed approval*!
SECURED CARD FOR REBUILDING CREDITprimor Secured Visa Classic
Barclaycard Arrival Plus® World Elite Mastercard®
Pay 0% interest on balance transfers for 12 months*!
RE: to pay or not(experts help
Legally, paying the debt is not supposed to restart the 7 year clock. Also, changing the opening date to 1996 on this account is a clear violation of the FCRA by the creditor. Dispute the item with the credit bureau either by saying it's not your debt (you didn't open an account with Cap One in 1996 - right?) or by stating the dates are wrong and provide the correct dates. Point out in your letter that the account is past the 7 year mark for reporting to the CRA's. If this doesn't work and it comes back verified write a letter to Cap One (without admitting the debt and without promising to pay anything) stating that the dates are incorrect and provide the correct dates. If they don't correct the info with the CRA's file a complaint with the FTC and your State Attorney Generals office and copy Cap One. Even if you truly do owe this debt, the are in violation of the FCRA. They have obviously reaged this debt to keep it on your report.
RE: to pay or not(experts help
From what I know (from this board and others) is that it shouldn't even be on the report in the first place. If the original debt was delinquent in 1993, and that is when it was charged off, they cannot "restart" the clock by adding another account. It is 7 years from the last payment before the delinquency. All other accounts (collections, etc) need to be removed at the same time (7.5 years). Dispute with the 7 years is up, and it should come off.
RE: to pay or not(experts help
Thanks for the reponse,I have disputed the account with all three CRA's but they all came back verified,we even sent a copy of a old credit report stating the original dates of the account .The original credit account number with the original dates have been dropped off of the credit report but like I said they opened another account named charge off account. We disputed this account as not belonging to her but it keeps coming back verified.
RE: to pay or not(experts help
My suggestion is to use the letters Marie has offered to sent to the original creditor. If it was charged off in 93, it should be gone. That's highway robbery!
Ready, Aim, FIRE!
Try to call the bureaus and get a supervisor... fax them/mail them a final letter enclosing the old copy of your credit report (BRAVO for keeping it).
They should IMMEDIATELY delete the item. Period. No 30 days. Their computers do it automatically (or were supposed to) If they don't, contact the FTC and your state's atty general and send them copies of your letters and docs. Make certain to reference "Wenger vs. TranUnion" in your letter to the CRAs. Make certain also to put in the letter that you are applying for a mortgage (this expedites it also) and it also sets you up for greater harms if the CRAs don't immediately respond.
You have all 3 CRAs over the barrel. If you just got your reports back w/ "Verified" also put in your next letter (sent certified, return receipt requested) that you want the proof of verification as required by the Fair Credit Reporting ACt.
They did not verify the account, they are lying to you, and causing you harms because of it. A strongly worded letter should resolve it, if not, you are absolutely entitled to compensation for their errors.
Please assert your rights here strongly. The CRAs get away with so much that when you clearly have them in the crosshairs... it truly helps all of us if you pull the trigger and hold them accountable for their actions. Your case is cut and dry since you have the old reports... and Wenger got 200k for her harms caused by the TransUnions failure to correct her reports This is a serious offense, compounded by their fabrication of "Verification".
Sample cra remove it now lette
here's a copy of a letter I used w/Equifax (just fill in the items).
Call Cap1 and see if there was a request for verification. (then you can keep that line in this letter).
Also, I've posted validation letters for use directly w/creditors. You can request validation directly from cap1. (it's a "prove it to me" letter). It'd back up your case if Cap1 says 96.
By the way, first I'd do a quick call to cap1 to verify what they say is the last date of activity (esp if they'll send a copy of confirmation to you). If they agree it's 93 YOu could request that they remove the item, or they're violating the Fair CRedit reporting Act (they really are). Maybe they don't know the date has been changed. Anyway, I'd try a call to Cap1. They could send you a letter verifying that the item should come off (and they'll send a Universal Data Form to the CRAs requesting removal) immediately. Fastest way to get something off is for the creditor to directly take it off. They won't want to, but it's the law!
You can also send this letter to the CRAs: I did a quick modification for you.
Your City, ST 01234
Some City, ST 56789
RE: Previous Dispute dated: x/x/xxxx
On xx/xx/xxxx we requested the removal of:
Capital One, account #, ete etc: (copy enclosed)
We were advised that the item was â??verifiedâ? correct and we received an updated copy of our credit report, dated xx/xx/xxxx, report number: xxxxxxxxx.
Be advised that we are requesting the description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information in our previous dispute, as per our rights.
Additionally, we are again disputing this item are hereby request that it be removed completely on the basis that the statute of limitations (7 years) of reporting time is now over.
We are enclosing a previous copy of our credit report dated xx/xx/xxxx, clearly showing the date of last activity as being xx/xx/xxxx. This is now OVER 7 years ago. Somehow, this item has been illegally redated to 8/96. We have contacted Capital One and they find no requests for verification from your company. (PUT THIS IF ITâ?S TRUE).
As we are currently in the process of applying for a mortgage, we are requesting an expedited investigation and removal of this item, as it is causing us not only emotional distress but also great financial hardship.
Be aware that I am making a final goodwill attempt to have you clear up this matter
Failure to comply with these federal regulations by credit reporting agencies are investigated by the Federal Trade Commission (see 15 USC 41, et seq.). I am maintaining a careful record of my communications with you on this matter, for the purpose of filing a complaint with the FTC and my state's attorney general should you continue in your non-compliance. I further remind you that, as in Wenger v. Trans Union Corp., No. 95-6445 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 14, 1995), you may be liable for your willful non-compliance.
Regarding this new dispute dated today, be advised that the description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information is hereby requested as well, to be provided within 15 days of the completion of your re-investigation.
Thank you in advance for removing this erroneous item. We truly appreciate your quick response.
Sent certified, return receipt requested
Add in anything else you want to. GOod luck!
Last post from me
No, don't pay a dime. they can't get a judgment on you anymore so you'd be paying extortion money to get the entry removed from your reports. It's not really hurting you in the sense that you can get the mortgage... but I agree. Get it removed as per your rights. YOu've done your 7 years of credit hell already. enough is enough.
Once this is dealt with, you may also want to pop off a letter to cap1 (certified, rr) saying that you're aware that the SOL has expired and you certainly would take action against Cap1 if they try to send it to any collection agency to try and illegally collect on this debt. Never hurts to let them know you know your rights.. but I wouldn't do this while you're asking for credit bureau removal... will just tick them off. By the way, from what I've seen, it's standard practice to keep trying to sell the debts off to collection agencies and hope a consumer has no clue what an SOL is... happens all the time. If it does, you just send a validation letter/ and eventually a cease and desist to a collection agency that might buy this debt... but what I'm hoping is that you'll clear this up with the bureaus, send an addl letter to Cap1 saying you know the sol is up... and you'll never hear of this matter again.
RE: to pay or not(experts help
I just went through this with the VA a
couple of months ago. I had two charge off's
from 1996. (Went through a divorce).
The Va considers credit reestablished when
you have made 12 consectutive months of on
time payments. They may ask for a letter of
explanation, but you will get your loan.
Also, you can add a statment to your credit file saying you do not owe the debt. You
may want to visit the Va's website, and review the section about derogatory credit.
They will even consider bankruptucy after
three years. You are fine. You know what
we are all getting more informed everyday!!!!
Also, the Va has a regional loan center with
and 800 number that you can use to talk directly with a credit underwritter.
Good Luck to you!
RE: Last post from me
Once again you guys came through,I will keep you posted on what happens!!!
The Added Derog Is Legit!
The limitation on the seven (7) year rule does not affect your Capital One debt, as dictated by 15 U.S.C. Â§1681c (c)(1). The reason can be found in the next paragraph of the Revised Fair Credit Reporting Act. 15 U.S.C. Â§1681c (c)(2) states:
â??Effective date. Paragraph (1) shall apply only to items of information added to the file of a consumer on or after the date that is 455 days after the date of enactment of the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996.â?
This essentially means that Capital One could have legally updated your file as late as, December 31, 1998. Now many may disagree with me, and so be it. I can only tell you that creditors (but never consumers -- wink) pay me handsomely to consult on vital collection related issues. I mention this not to impress, but impress UPON you that itâ??s my professional function to be accurate.
Nonetheless, what Cap-One did is not uncommon. A creditor can certainly open a queue (collector-speak for a collection computer pool of data) specifically to track and collect upon aged accounts, not unlike yours. If a creditor were to do that, it would have until the expiration of 455 days after 30 September 1997to hit your CBR.
Unfortunately all the letters, validations and threats of litigation, in the world will probably not do you good if Cap-One sticks to their guns. That is because you seem to state that the initial charge-off was reported in 1993. The creditor can certainly update your report with new information, as with the opening of queues for activity regarding charge-offs. (This is done in a particular way so donâ??t feel too bad, lots of folks got hit with you.) Based on information at hand, Iâ??d say itâ??s a very good bet they did just that.
(I know this is long-winded, albeit, bear with me just a bit longer?)
Also the Statute of Limitations in Georgia, or any other state for that matter, in no way prevents a debt from being collected indefinitely! A statute only acts as an absolute bar against LITIGATING for or in pursuit of recovery, and very little more.
Look I know this is all probably very confusing, not to mention clearly contradictory to info you may already have. Yet the fact remains, unless you (or another more skilled) negotiate a settlement on condition of a credit redress; that Cap-One hit is likely to remain where it is for some time.
So please donâ??t be too angry with me for being the bearer of bad news. But if it is imperative that this credit hit be removed, so that you can get a mortgage? Iâ??d suggest hiring a professional negotiator, one skilled in credit related matters. Go to one of Kristiâ??s websites (http://anything4credit.com/debtneg.htm) where youâ??ll find info on debt negotiating professionals. If you can get the mortgage loan without redressing this issue, you may consider doing just that.
Finally (and I know youâ??re grateful â?? SMILE), your loan broker is incorrect in that no new info can be added. Now unless you agree to pay (in whole or part) on the account only the statute can be reset, but not the reporting term. Now perhaps you can see why in SOME cases it is better to have a pro workout terms, rather than yourself?
Keep The Faith,
RE: Or is it?
First of all you are giving them an extra year:
"455 days after 30 September 1997" should be
"455 days after 30 September 1996"
2. Public Law 104-208, the legislation adding the FCRA provisions discussed in this letter, was signed into law on September 30, 1996. Section 605(c)(1) became effective 455 days after that date, as provided by Section 605(c)(2). Most of the provisions became effective 365 days after enactment.
Secondly this is a debatable point. To hit a report with the same charge off twice with two different dates I don't think would hold up in court. That statute was meant to find a clear starting date. Like when does it start after it's been late for 30 days or after it has been charged off. The day it was reported late or the date it was reported charged-off? In this case they are claiming that they can move the charge-off date whenever they want and I don't think that is legal.
RE: Or is it?
Oh wait, maybe you are right on that first point I make so it 9-30-96 + 455 days + 365 days. Geez why can't they just say December 31, 1998 and leave the math alone.
I still thing I'm right about changing the date on the same charge-off. There was a seven year limit before the new provision came about after all. Collection agencies can only get so cute about when those date begin.
Interesting advice... and adve
I think we made it clear that the sol involves lawsuits: which means the collectors have more bark than bite.
He certainly can try to resolve this himself... and by asserting rights (and showing he won't back down easily) he has more leverage to negotiate a DISPUTED debt than one that hasn't been disputed in validity. (If he decides to retire the account completely by doing a negotiated settlement) Additionally, I believe it's true to say that as debts become older they tend to be pursued less and less. After all, better for collectors to address more recent accounts than ones that are so much less likely to be settled.
You posts are very detailed which we appreciate, and I also am noticing a trend that you don't seem to think we should deal with our own matters: just "hire a professional".
A negotiated settlement w/a collection agency is pretty basic. Other than negotiating the trade line removal in writing, the only other issue would be the dollar amount... how hard it that? It's the easiest of all our methods. That would be the one time I certainly would NEVER hire a professional. Waste of money.
Do It Yourself, Sometimes
While I respect your opinions it must be noted there is a stark difference between theory, and real-world application. If you were to read the trend of my posts on a number of boards, youâ??d know I am a strong advocate of self-help. Yet certain situations call for experience and (more importantly) grasp of subtleties that some readers may not possess. When an uncertainty arises while reviewing such situations, I will ALWAYS recommend that experience take the place of frugality.
As far as advertising? Take my word for it, were I to consult consumers for a fee the vast majority wouldnâ??t think of entertaining my hour rate. The overwhelming bunch couldnâ??t afford me. I donâ??t receive a dime from any sources I might suggest. So whom do you think Iâ??ve been advertising for?
Irrespective, effectively handling mundane credit issues â??canâ? be done by oneâ??s self. But sensitive issues as ATM found himself in, would be better served by professional involvement. In context with this thread, if ATM were after a credit redress for the particular issue a professional would better serve his agenda.
Keep The Faith,