Re: I already messed up Aren't those public records anyway? I mean, wouldn't the creditor just log onto the bankruptcy filing system and find out by doing a "name search" under its open cases? If so, it's not that big of a blunder. I would be able to find out anyone in any jurisdiction who filed for BK by just doing a name search.
Re: Re: I already messed up No. All a CRA would know is that you had filed a BK. They would not know specifically on which account's you had file. It is a huge blunder.
Re: Re: I already messed up Even though I made a rookie mistake early in the game before I knew about Creditnet. I must say I have still been able to get accounts deleted even though I listed them on the bk. I simply used trick like outdated, paid as agreed before the bk, and it has worked for me. I had 19 items reporting adverse on my equifax back in April, today I only have 8. One problem I faced though was Ford says paid as agreed but it still list the repossession, still trying to figure this one out. My providian account says paid as agreed/sold or transfered even though it's under the bk.
Re: Re: I already messed up my mistake is having only 3 years of perfect credit. maybe its because you have to be 18 to enter binding contracts.
100 mistakes My biggest mistake was by being honest. By wanting to be forthright and acknowledging on my own and out loud on a telephone that yes, this was my debt and I'm interested in paying it and being done with it. I committed cardinal rule #1: NEVER ADMIT GUILT TO A CA. I had no idea this forum and others like it existed for guidance, and I was out there on my own, winging it. I thought honesty was the best policy and that the CAs would be lenient with someone like me willing to play by the rules. I thought we could negotiate for a lesser amount because we now had a dialogue. I didn't ask for any debt validation. I didn't know... As a result of my so called compliance, I was served a summons as 'refusing to pay', even though my payments were on time and in a larger amount than what was verbally agreed upon( I got NOTHING in writing...Cardinal rule #2....), and even though the entire debt has been settled IN FULL, there is still a lawsuit lingering. Read here. Take your time. Stay off the phone. If caller ID, ignore the calls labelled 'UNAVAILABLE'. Make them contact you in writing at all times. However, be aware that you're bound to make mistakes because, like for all of us, it's unchartered territory, and every case has it's own unique parameters.
Re: Re: I already messed up HI, I'm another newbie here! Been post Bankruptcy (ch 7) for 3 years now and have just started on cleaning up my reports. Question#1 Will it hurt my score to correct listings that reflect "closed" to "Included in Bankruptcy"?? Should I have disputed by listing "not my account" instead?? Getting a little confused. Question #2 What about the ones that DO already reflect "included in Bankruptcy? Should I dispute those as well, to possibly get them removed? I've been reading like crazy since finding this site 2 days ago! Need lots of help. Thanks!
100 mistakes "Read here. Take your time. Stay off the phone. If caller ID, ignore the calls labelled 'UNAVAILABLE'. Make them contact you in writing at all times." But I have one CA agency for which I have NEVER received a piece of mail. ALL I have gotten are telephone calls. And what does it mean when the CA states "if you do not call back by 6 PM tonight it will be considered a direct refusal."? Please help!
Re: 100 mistakes "It means they're trying to push you around." Maybe I should just push them back. Would it be within my rights to tell any collection agency when they call to demand they stop calling me and for them to send me a letter telling me what they want? Should I refuse to talk to them and tell them I will deal with them in writing via mail? I find it interesting that some companies NEVER call but will send letter after leter while other companies will ALWAYS call but I never get any letters.
Same here... I've been sitting around depressed for 5 years, the whole time my credit report getting worse because I thought, what the heck, there's nothing I can do about it so I just went ahead and dug myself in deeper. Thank goodness I stumbled upon this site!
Wow, this thread was brought back from the dead. 5 years! Everything will be totally clean in 2 more, why wait, you can get it cleaned up pretty quickly since most are dropping off soon anyway, allot easier then recent or 1-2 years old. Biggest mistakes I see for most is getting in a hurry, sending docs to the CRA or CA's ( never ever do this, it's their job to prove it ) and applying for credit without knowing what each trade line requires and who they pull. I read once on another forum site that had someone with 121 inquiries.
The copy of the green card will show the date and time the dispute letter was received, not the content of the dispute letter. How can it be useful in court then?
It Really does not matter if you use the same . if you make a dispute the CRA MUST act on it and investigate it .,no matter how frivolous it looks
You now have the date and time the dispute letter was received .Make copies of the original including your name and address . If you do have to go to court with the green card you have proof SOMETHING was sent and delivered .
A CA can indeed argue that you just sent them an empty envelope CMRR. Essentially, the CA would be arguing that your evidence is misleading or deceptive. What you have to understand is that civil trials -- assuming this even gets to the court -- are not black and white. It isn't like you see on TV. If you and your case are respectful, well-presented, and thorough, the judge is probably going to find it very unlikely that you sent an empty envelope or blank letter. In other words, you don't have a responsibility to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that you sent an actual letter. You only have to show that it is more likely that you did send an actual letter than not. To that end, what possible benefit would you have to sending an empty letter? I wouldn't want to be in the unenviable position of arguing on behalf of the CA on this one.
